Day: October 8, 2017

A Century Later, Russia Still Is Fighting Its Revolution


In Russia, October 25 is the 100th anniversary of the October Revolution, as a result of which the monarchical dynasty of the Romanovs was overthrown and the socialist-communist power of the Bolsheviks was established. Despite the fact that it happened a long time ago, this historic event still provokes broad public political discussions. This is primarily because many contemporary problems in Russia and the post-Soviet space are directly related to the consequences of the Bolshevik Revolution. Moreover, without an analysis of these historical processes, it is impossible to understand and appreciate Russia’s geopolitical desire to strengthen and expand its influence on the Eurasian space. So, what happened 100 years ago and why does it continue to affect today’s realities?

Some historians believe that the Great October Revolution was a natural consequence of social development and the class struggle, given monopoly capitalism. Opponents of such ideas note that the transfer of power to the Bolsheviks occurred because of the weakness of the Provisional Government. Using its indecisiveness, the Bolshevik conspirators received money from Germany and launched mass propaganda and destructive activity. With populist slogans, they promised to end the war, give land to peasants, and the factories and property of the bourgeoisie to workers. They even guaranteed freedom for national minorities to leave the Empire. But today’s Russian neo-imperialists propagandize these ideas, emphasizing that the October Revolution was a deeply antipatriotic act since it was committed with the money of a foreign state, for which Russia’s national interests were sacrificed.

In fact, Russian politics today have become an arena for confrontation of the three major camps: communist, monarchical and social-conservative. The leaders of these movements agree that Moscow is the third Rome and it should dominate the Eurasian space. However, there are discrepancies about the ideology that should become the driving force of the new empire. Sergey Kurginyan — one of the leaders of the neo-Marxist movement — is sure that the revival of the red empire is inevitable. The reason for that is that although the results of the referendum on the collapse of the USSR showed that most people wanted to preserve the Soviet Union, they were illegally ignored. During the event devoted to the 99th anniversary of the Revolution, Gennady Zyuganov — leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) — stated a clear goal “to revive the great united power.”

The monarchist front is also gaining popularity. According to recent sociological surveys, a third of young people in Russia favour the monarchical form of government in the country. There are 35 % of monarchy supporters among people between 25 and 34. In general, the share of Russian citizens that are not against or support the monarchy is consistently growing: in 2006 – 21%, in 2017 – 28%. The ideologists of monarchism emphasize that Orthodox Russia is the heir of the destroyed Byzantine Empire. The leaders of numerous socio-political movements of this kind believe that after the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks, Russia became the only real guardian of the Orthodox faith in the world. Further, it predetermined its isolation from the West, tracing Russia’s special historical path.

Alexander Dugin, a philosopher and supporter of the monarchy restoration, writes that Byzantium gives a unique dimension to all nations that have adopted Orthodoxy. This dimension is not only narrowly confessional, but also cultural, political, and civilizational. The neo-Byzantine ideological path of Russia is actively promoted through the TV channel called “Tsargrad” (note: the Russian name of Constantinople). It is financed by Konstantin Malafeev, who is known as the “Orthodox oligarch.” “Tsargrad TV” positions itself as the first Russian conservative information and analytical channel. It closely cooperates with Russian public and religious organizations, in particular, with the Russian Orthodox Church. In addition, over the past decade, newspapers, magazines and radio stations have been launched. Thus, monarchists, like communists, possess substantial material and human resources for broadcasting their ideas to the general public.

Social-conservative ideas are devised in the “Izborsk Club.”  The ideological direction of this organization can be identified as a synthesis of different views of Russian statesmen in a single ideological platform: from socialists and Soviet patriots to monarchists and Orthodox conservatives. There are such influential personalities among the members of the Club as Sergey Glazyev — adviser to President Putin on economic issues, Dmitry Rogozin — Deputy Chairman of the Government, and other well-known military, scientists and journalists — Leonid Ivashov, Alexander Prokhanov, Mikhail Leontiev, Maxim Shevchenko and others. The leadership of this organization sees its primary task in “forming a political-ideological coalition of patriotic statesmen, an imperial front that opposes manipulations carried out in Russian politics by foreign influence centers and their agents inside the country.”

Don’t expect Russia to “converge” with the advanced Western economies anytime soon. The ideas of communism, monarchism and social conservatism that are gaining popularity among the Russian public are mobilizing opinion against the collective West (primarily the United States).  They are using an external threat as a foil for their own purposes.

According to the leaders of the movements, clubs and organizations mentioned above, Russia’s values are spiritual, while the West is materialistic. Thus, a confrontation is inevitable. Numerous speeches and interviews show that the current leadership of the country is trying not to interfere in the battles among these three ideological factions and not to take sides. On the one hand, President Putin has to be gentle with the communists, saying that the disintegration of the atheistic USSR is the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the XX century. On the other hand, he stresses that Orthodoxy is the root of the Russian people and state. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the new Russia was not accepted into the Western family. Therefore, there are no other ideas, except for a return to the past.

Areg Galstyan – Ph.D., a regular contributor to The National Interest and Forbes. Follow him on twitter.

In Russia, October 25 is the 100th anniversary of the October Revolution, as a result of which the monarchical dynasty of the Romanovs was overthrown and the socialist-communist power of the Bolsheviks was established. Despite the fact that it happened a long time ago, this historic event still provokes broad public political discussions. This is primarily because many contemporary problems in Russia and the post-Soviet space are directly related to the consequences of the Bolshevik Revolution. Moreover, without an analysis of these historical processes, it is impossible to understand and appreciate Russia’s geopolitical desire to strengthen and expand its influence on the Eurasian space. So, what happened 100 years ago and why does it continue to affect today’s realities?

Some historians believe that the Great October Revolution was a natural consequence of social development and the class struggle, given monopoly capitalism. Opponents of such ideas note that the transfer of power to the Bolsheviks occurred because of the weakness of the Provisional Government. Using its indecisiveness, the Bolshevik conspirators received money from Germany and launched mass propaganda and destructive activity. With populist slogans, they promised to end the war, give land to peasants, and the factories and property of the bourgeoisie to workers. They even guaranteed freedom for national minorities to leave the Empire. But today’s Russian neo-imperialists propagandize these ideas, emphasizing that the October Revolution was a deeply antipatriotic act since it was committed with the money of a foreign state, for which Russia’s national interests were sacrificed.

In fact, Russian politics today have become an arena for confrontation of the three major camps: communist, monarchical and social-conservative. The leaders of these movements agree that Moscow is the third Rome and it should dominate the Eurasian space. However, there are discrepancies about the ideology that should become the driving force of the new empire. Sergey Kurginyan — one of the leaders of the neo-Marxist movement — is sure that the revival of the red empire is inevitable. The reason for that is that although the results of the referendum on the collapse of the USSR showed that most people wanted to preserve the Soviet Union, they were illegally ignored. During the event devoted to the 99th anniversary of the Revolution, Gennady Zyuganov — leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) — stated a clear goal “to revive the great united power.”

The monarchist front is also gaining popularity. According to recent sociological surveys, a third of young people in Russia favour the monarchical form of government in the country. There are 35 % of monarchy supporters among people between 25 and 34. In general, the share of Russian citizens that are not against or support the monarchy is consistently growing: in 2006 – 21%, in 2017 – 28%. The ideologists of monarchism emphasize that Orthodox Russia is the heir of the destroyed Byzantine Empire. The leaders of numerous socio-political movements of this kind believe that after the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks, Russia became the only real guardian of the Orthodox faith in the world. Further, it predetermined its isolation from the West, tracing Russia’s special historical path.

Alexander Dugin, a philosopher and supporter of the monarchy restoration, writes that Byzantium gives a unique dimension to all nations that have adopted Orthodoxy. This dimension is not only narrowly confessional, but also cultural, political, and civilizational. The neo-Byzantine ideological path of Russia is actively promoted through the TV channel called “Tsargrad” (note: the Russian name of Constantinople). It is financed by Konstantin Malafeev, who is known as the “Orthodox oligarch.” “Tsargrad TV” positions itself as the first Russian conservative information and analytical channel. It closely cooperates with Russian public and religious organizations, in particular, with the Russian Orthodox Church. In addition, over the past decade, newspapers, magazines and radio stations have been launched. Thus, monarchists, like communists, possess substantial material and human resources for broadcasting their ideas to the general public.

Social-conservative ideas are devised in the “Izborsk Club.”  The ideological direction of this organization can be identified as a synthesis of different views of Russian statesmen in a single ideological platform: from socialists and Soviet patriots to monarchists and Orthodox conservatives. There are such influential personalities among the members of the Club as Sergey Glazyev — adviser to President Putin on economic issues, Dmitry Rogozin — Deputy Chairman of the Government, and other well-known military, scientists and journalists — Leonid Ivashov, Alexander Prokhanov, Mikhail Leontiev, Maxim Shevchenko and others. The leadership of this organization sees its primary task in “forming a political-ideological coalition of patriotic statesmen, an imperial front that opposes manipulations carried out in Russian politics by foreign influence centers and their agents inside the country.”

Don’t expect Russia to “converge” with the advanced Western economies anytime soon. The ideas of communism, monarchism and social conservatism that are gaining popularity among the Russian public are mobilizing opinion against the collective West (primarily the United States).  They are using an external threat as a foil for their own purposes.

According to the leaders of the movements, clubs and organizations mentioned above, Russia’s values are spiritual, while the West is materialistic. Thus, a confrontation is inevitable. Numerous speeches and interviews show that the current leadership of the country is trying not to interfere in the battles among these three ideological factions and not to take sides. On the one hand, President Putin has to be gentle with the communists, saying that the disintegration of the atheistic USSR is the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the XX century. On the other hand, he stresses that Orthodoxy is the root of the Russian people and state. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the new Russia was not accepted into the Western family. Therefore, there are no other ideas, except for a return to the past.

Areg Galstyan – Ph.D., a regular contributor to The National Interest and Forbes. Follow him on twitter.



Source link

The Unbelievable Stupidity of Those Who Believe that Laws Stop the Lawless


Lady Gaga is the latest celebrity weighing in on the aftermath of the Las Vegas massacre by blaming lawmakers (aka Republicans) for not passing more gun control.  Yoo-hoo Lady G, no law would have prevented the slaughter because the alleged suspect passed all federal laws purchasing his legal guns.  Here’s a tip which I give freely (as someone who loathes guns and is not a member of the NRA): if you hear anyone urging Congress to pass more gun controls immediately, consider that person mentally deficient. That advice will be coming from celebrities, the media and politicians who probably all have armed security to protect them.

Yes, I do loathe guns and no, I would never own one — but that’s because I live in New York City where the NYPD is fully armed. If I lived in a rural area, that would be another story, but left-wing politicians don’t care about anyone not living in Los Angeles or New York City.  If these anti-gun advocates hadn’t drunk the proverbial Kool-Aid and studied the Constitution, they’d know that this amendment wasn’t about hunting but was meant to protect citizens from an oppressive government that would disarm them. That’s what dictators do as soon as they obtain power. Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, and progressive Democrats realized that the power for total control of the populace is through disarmament.

Actress Jessica Chastain who starred in several high-profile films, wrote this ditty: “Welcome to America, where you’ll wait 6 months for an X-ray but hey, you can buy an AR-15 in 5 minutes flat.”  At first, I thought that Ms. Chastain was either British or Canadian and was speaking from experience with those countries’ inferior health resources, but no. I checked the Internet Movie Database (IMDB) and learned not only was she born in California but that her father is a vegan chef. Well, that explains why she’s missing some cognitive brain cells usually found in healthy meat eaters. In America, most doctors who need them have their offices are equipped with their own X-ray machines and have been for several decades. However, if you can buy an AR-15 in 5 minutes, you’re probably buying it out of a trunk, as most criminals do in spite of gun control laws already in place.

Nancy Sinatra gets the Stephen Paddock mass murder wannabe award for her tweet (now deleted) announcing:

The murderous members of the NRA should face a firing squad. https://t.co/5ceuMvk5Tl


— Nancy Sinatra (@NancySinatra) October 3, 2017

The ignorance on guns that is constantly displayed by entertainment celebrities would be amusing were it not for the fact that they have a large audience. Late night show host Jimmy Kimmel used to be a funny man, but is riding so high on a factually-challenged anti-gun horse that he’s becoming a joke himself. He must be getting his fake talking points from Sen. Chuck Schumer who coached him with fake healthcare data. Neither of these two men knows anything about what the NRA stands for or why we have the Second Amendment.  Sadly, neither do many Americans taught in public schools that fail to teach American History.

I used to be as ignorant as those celebrities about guns and the NRA, but two things happened.

First, I married a former Marine from the Deep South who had grown up in the Everglades, where alligators and snakes outnumber humans. My hubby had had a .22 rifle since he was twelve. His mom used hers to shoot snakes on the porch of their house. When I lived in Miami in 1971, I learned that most drivers kept their guns in the glove compartment.  It was another world for me, and while I never felt any compulsion to become gun friendly, there hadn’t been any mass shootings by psychopaths since Charles Whitman opened fire from the University of Texas clock tower and killed his mother, wife and 13 strangers.  Then came Columbine and many others.

The second thing that changed my attitude was an article I read in 2000. My original impression of the National Rifle Association was that it was an organization of  “gun nuts.”  I also knew that the NRA had the most powerful lobby in Washington and in general, it was an organization that I certainly could never empathize with, given my aversion for all guns.

What changed my opinion was an interview by JFK, Jr. in George Magazine of then-NRA president, Marion Hammer, a grandmother of three. She didn’t seem to fit my stereotype of a gun aficionado at all. She was a reasonable, articulate and credible woman who explained what the NRA stood for and its achievements. I was particularly impressed to learn how progressive this organization has been in respect to women’s issues. There are no glass ceilings in the NRA as women have been elected to the NRA Board of Directors as far back as 1948. Their slogan, “refuse to be a victim,” is the theme behind the NRA’s training and defense programs designed for women who feel threatened by crime and criminals.

Ms. Hammer stated that she is most proud of the Eddie Eagle Gun Safety program she initiated to teach youngsters the importance of safety around firearms. In addition, the organization sponsors competitions and is responsible for training law enforcement instructors who train thousands of police officers and sheriff’s deputies every year. After researching the background of the NRA, I have come to believe that its membership is composed of millions of law-abiding, responsible citizens.  I’m not sure if the Las Vegas killer was an NRA member but I seriously doubt it. In fact, nearly all of the modern mass murderers were registered Democrats or apolitical.

There are no easy answers to the gun violence that plagues us but the left seems to think that there is one — if only we would ban guns. Another non compos mentis celebrity, Michael Moore, said that it’s time to get rid of Trump and the Second Amendment. Have any of these celebs noticed that these mass murders have occurred in gun-free zones that are actually a magnet for psycho killers?  It’s amazing how the left brings up the same worthless arguments when the gun victims are the same color as themselves. If they really are concerned with gun deaths then why isn’t this same call to arms being organized to protest the many deaths in Chicago where the majority are blacks and minorities? Has Black Lives Matter organized protests there? I don’t think so.

My first reaction to any violent deaths is to pray for the deceased not to make political hay out of their murders. Those on the left are hypocritical and classless.

Lady Gaga is the latest celebrity weighing in on the aftermath of the Las Vegas massacre by blaming lawmakers (aka Republicans) for not passing more gun control.  Yoo-hoo Lady G, no law would have prevented the slaughter because the alleged suspect passed all federal laws purchasing his legal guns.  Here’s a tip which I give freely (as someone who loathes guns and is not a member of the NRA): if you hear anyone urging Congress to pass more gun controls immediately, consider that person mentally deficient. That advice will be coming from celebrities, the media and politicians who probably all have armed security to protect them.

Yes, I do loathe guns and no, I would never own one — but that’s because I live in New York City where the NYPD is fully armed. If I lived in a rural area, that would be another story, but left-wing politicians don’t care about anyone not living in Los Angeles or New York City.  If these anti-gun advocates hadn’t drunk the proverbial Kool-Aid and studied the Constitution, they’d know that this amendment wasn’t about hunting but was meant to protect citizens from an oppressive government that would disarm them. That’s what dictators do as soon as they obtain power. Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, and progressive Democrats realized that the power for total control of the populace is through disarmament.

Actress Jessica Chastain who starred in several high-profile films, wrote this ditty: “Welcome to America, where you’ll wait 6 months for an X-ray but hey, you can buy an AR-15 in 5 minutes flat.”  At first, I thought that Ms. Chastain was either British or Canadian and was speaking from experience with those countries’ inferior health resources, but no. I checked the Internet Movie Database (IMDB) and learned not only was she born in California but that her father is a vegan chef. Well, that explains why she’s missing some cognitive brain cells usually found in healthy meat eaters. In America, most doctors who need them have their offices are equipped with their own X-ray machines and have been for several decades. However, if you can buy an AR-15 in 5 minutes, you’re probably buying it out of a trunk, as most criminals do in spite of gun control laws already in place.

Nancy Sinatra gets the Stephen Paddock mass murder wannabe award for her tweet (now deleted) announcing:

The murderous members of the NRA should face a firing squad. https://t.co/5ceuMvk5Tl


— Nancy Sinatra (@NancySinatra) October 3, 2017

The ignorance on guns that is constantly displayed by entertainment celebrities would be amusing were it not for the fact that they have a large audience. Late night show host Jimmy Kimmel used to be a funny man, but is riding so high on a factually-challenged anti-gun horse that he’s becoming a joke himself. He must be getting his fake talking points from Sen. Chuck Schumer who coached him with fake healthcare data. Neither of these two men knows anything about what the NRA stands for or why we have the Second Amendment.  Sadly, neither do many Americans taught in public schools that fail to teach American History.

I used to be as ignorant as those celebrities about guns and the NRA, but two things happened.

First, I married a former Marine from the Deep South who had grown up in the Everglades, where alligators and snakes outnumber humans. My hubby had had a .22 rifle since he was twelve. His mom used hers to shoot snakes on the porch of their house. When I lived in Miami in 1971, I learned that most drivers kept their guns in the glove compartment.  It was another world for me, and while I never felt any compulsion to become gun friendly, there hadn’t been any mass shootings by psychopaths since Charles Whitman opened fire from the University of Texas clock tower and killed his mother, wife and 13 strangers.  Then came Columbine and many others.

The second thing that changed my attitude was an article I read in 2000. My original impression of the National Rifle Association was that it was an organization of  “gun nuts.”  I also knew that the NRA had the most powerful lobby in Washington and in general, it was an organization that I certainly could never empathize with, given my aversion for all guns.

What changed my opinion was an interview by JFK, Jr. in George Magazine of then-NRA president, Marion Hammer, a grandmother of three. She didn’t seem to fit my stereotype of a gun aficionado at all. She was a reasonable, articulate and credible woman who explained what the NRA stood for and its achievements. I was particularly impressed to learn how progressive this organization has been in respect to women’s issues. There are no glass ceilings in the NRA as women have been elected to the NRA Board of Directors as far back as 1948. Their slogan, “refuse to be a victim,” is the theme behind the NRA’s training and defense programs designed for women who feel threatened by crime and criminals.

Ms. Hammer stated that she is most proud of the Eddie Eagle Gun Safety program she initiated to teach youngsters the importance of safety around firearms. In addition, the organization sponsors competitions and is responsible for training law enforcement instructors who train thousands of police officers and sheriff’s deputies every year. After researching the background of the NRA, I have come to believe that its membership is composed of millions of law-abiding, responsible citizens.  I’m not sure if the Las Vegas killer was an NRA member but I seriously doubt it. In fact, nearly all of the modern mass murderers were registered Democrats or apolitical.

There are no easy answers to the gun violence that plagues us but the left seems to think that there is one — if only we would ban guns. Another non compos mentis celebrity, Michael Moore, said that it’s time to get rid of Trump and the Second Amendment. Have any of these celebs noticed that these mass murders have occurred in gun-free zones that are actually a magnet for psycho killers?  It’s amazing how the left brings up the same worthless arguments when the gun victims are the same color as themselves. If they really are concerned with gun deaths then why isn’t this same call to arms being organized to protest the many deaths in Chicago where the majority are blacks and minorities? Has Black Lives Matter organized protests there? I don’t think so.

My first reaction to any violent deaths is to pray for the deceased not to make political hay out of their murders. Those on the left are hypocritical and classless.



Source link

What Happened in Vegas


I imagine that this will light up the comments section, but someone needs to write it: the conspiracy theories cropping up over the Las Vegas shooting are as noisome as mushrooms on a dunghill after a spring rain.  In discussing some of the more outlandish and offensive ones, I will not document them lest I drive more traffic to the authors’ websites.

Law enforcement is withholding information from us.

Of course it is.  It always does. That’s called good practice before police have interviewed all who might have information – scarcely a revelation.

Do I wish they would release all the data after the investigation is complete?  Yes.  But that has never been standard practice in this country, nor in any other.  Conspiracy theorists would do well to remember Occam’s Razor.

It was a false flag operation carried out by the international Zionist cabal.

My wife goes to an exercise class with a woman whose friends were at the concert.  Is she just another Zionist stooge?

No one was killed because pictures taken the next day showed no bodies or pools of blood.

The first part is too ludicrous to require comment.  As for the second, the evidence adduced is two photos taken from several hundred yards away.  No, I cannot make out pools of blood.  I also cannot distinguish a water bottle from a ballcap at that distance.

The pictures from the hotel room show only a few dozen pieces of brass, whereas the media is saying he fired thousands of rounds.

Judging by the distance between the two broken out windows and diagrams of the typical suite on that floor of the Mandalay Bay, the suites were large – more square footage than many houses.  Until someone has examined all the photos of every square inch of the suites, how can he say how much brass there was?

There must have been multiple shooters.

As the attack unfolded, there were conflicting reports over the air among law enforcement, everything from “upstairs in the Mandalay Bay, halfway up” to “inside the fairgrounds” to “Gate 7” to “either Mandalay or Luxor, we cannot tell” to “the 50th or 60th floor, north of the Mandalay Bay” to “middle of Mandalay Bay on the north side.”

Are these all proof of a massive conspiracy to conceal multiple shooters?  Hardly.  When you’re taking gunfire, it’s difficult to pinpoint the source, especially when among tall buildings and the attendant echoes.  That’s why people talk about “the fog of war.”

There is a qualitative difference in the reports of some of the strings – further proof of multiple shooters.

The change in report could be due to switching from .308 to .223.

People just stood around during the shooting.  Why wouldn’t they run?

Anyone who has ever been in a disaster or near disaster knows that many (most?) people cannot process what is happening and either freeze or continue with what they were doing.  Besides, in a crowd of 30,000, you cannot see from ground level what is happening on the other side.  Notice that Aldean runs off stage at the end of the first string.  From the stage, he is above the crowd and so can see what is happening far better than those on the ground.

Paddock was not ex-military, therefore he could not have done it.

The “experts” who assert this should attend a High Power Rifle Match at their local range.  While such matches are dominated by military and ex-military, there are plenty of accomplished civilian participants who compete at a very high level.  In any event, the type of shooting Paddock was doing has nothing to do with sniping. The best response comes from a friend who – let’s just say he is ex-military and fought in jungles many years ago.

All of the commenters you attached are hung up on the sniper concept, but this guy was playing bullet hose and wouldn’t have needed scopes (although he may have had them).  He was “aiming” by seeing people fall down and moving the flow of bullets around.  Think back to all the Vietnam video you’ve seen with troops doing magazine dumps from the waist without aiming.

My analysis

I offer my analysis, for what it’s worth, of the first four strings of fire with the caveat that none of us in the public has access to all the evidence, much less the skills to do a thorough job.

First, a note about terminology.  In the video cited below, there are four strings of shots, not volleys.  We’re not talking about tennis here.  Similarly, several newscasters have talked about the shooter’s tripods.  The photos from Paddock’s suite clearly show bipods on the guns.  I have never, ever seen someone shooting from a tripod.  How much confidence would a motorcyclist have in a review of a new bike that repeatedly and erroneously refers to the machine as a trike?  That is why I am critical of so many of these “experts.”

A number of the videos I have seen are spliced.  I used this one because it seems to be continuously shot with the same phone (2.14 total runtime).  I count four strings:

  1. 0.0 thru 0.9 (does not start at beginning of string; in this video, the first string lasts from 0.05 to 0.15)
  2. 0.46 thru 0.56
  3. 1.13 thru 1.23 (slight pause in string)
  4. 1.42 thru 1.52

Assuming 600 rounds per minute, a good figure for the AR platform, means that each of these strings is 100 rounds, so he must have been using 100-round drum magazines, for you can hear no pauses long enough for a magazine change.  The few pictures available of his room show ARs with 30-round magazines. He may have used those later, but the above videos do not have short strings.

Initial reports said shooting went on for over four minutes.  Some assert that he could have fired only 360 rounds in those four minutes, therefore he could not have killed and wounded so many.  Apparently, it lasted much longer:

  • “The gunshots lasted for 10 to 15 minutes. It didn’t stop,” said witness Rachel de Kerf.
  • Gunfire started at 10:08 and “by 10:20 p.m., there are some indications the shooting has stopped, although it is not clear.”

I am skeptical that he could shoot such long, smooth strings with bump-fire stocks.  In the time I have spent at ranges, I have never heard anyone get off even a 30-round string with bump fire without many hiccups, much less 100 rounds.  But I am not an expert on such accessories, nor have I done extensive testing of them.

I hope this analysis adds some signal to a noisy discussion.  I have tried to draw only narrow conclusions from the limited evidence available.  Wildly extrapolating from incomplete data helps no one.

As to possible explanations for Paddock’s behavior, see this for an account of a homicidal psychotic break, induced by prescription drugs, in a loved one.  John Ringo is a well known science-fiction author.

Henry Percy is the nom de guerre of a writer in Arizona.  He may be reached at saler.50d[at]gmail.com.

I imagine that this will light up the comments section, but someone needs to write it: the conspiracy theories cropping up over the Las Vegas shooting are as noisome as mushrooms on a dunghill after a spring rain.  In discussing some of the more outlandish and offensive ones, I will not document them lest I drive more traffic to the authors’ websites.

Law enforcement is withholding information from us.

Of course it is.  It always does. That’s called good practice before police have interviewed all who might have information – scarcely a revelation.

Do I wish they would release all the data after the investigation is complete?  Yes.  But that has never been standard practice in this country, nor in any other.  Conspiracy theorists would do well to remember Occam’s Razor.

It was a false flag operation carried out by the international Zionist cabal.

My wife goes to an exercise class with a woman whose friends were at the concert.  Is she just another Zionist stooge?

No one was killed because pictures taken the next day showed no bodies or pools of blood.

The first part is too ludicrous to require comment.  As for the second, the evidence adduced is two photos taken from several hundred yards away.  No, I cannot make out pools of blood.  I also cannot distinguish a water bottle from a ballcap at that distance.

The pictures from the hotel room show only a few dozen pieces of brass, whereas the media is saying he fired thousands of rounds.

Judging by the distance between the two broken out windows and diagrams of the typical suite on that floor of the Mandalay Bay, the suites were large – more square footage than many houses.  Until someone has examined all the photos of every square inch of the suites, how can he say how much brass there was?

There must have been multiple shooters.

As the attack unfolded, there were conflicting reports over the air among law enforcement, everything from “upstairs in the Mandalay Bay, halfway up” to “inside the fairgrounds” to “Gate 7” to “either Mandalay or Luxor, we cannot tell” to “the 50th or 60th floor, north of the Mandalay Bay” to “middle of Mandalay Bay on the north side.”

Are these all proof of a massive conspiracy to conceal multiple shooters?  Hardly.  When you’re taking gunfire, it’s difficult to pinpoint the source, especially when among tall buildings and the attendant echoes.  That’s why people talk about “the fog of war.”

There is a qualitative difference in the reports of some of the strings – further proof of multiple shooters.

The change in report could be due to switching from .308 to .223.

People just stood around during the shooting.  Why wouldn’t they run?

Anyone who has ever been in a disaster or near disaster knows that many (most?) people cannot process what is happening and either freeze or continue with what they were doing.  Besides, in a crowd of 30,000, you cannot see from ground level what is happening on the other side.  Notice that Aldean runs off stage at the end of the first string.  From the stage, he is above the crowd and so can see what is happening far better than those on the ground.

Paddock was not ex-military, therefore he could not have done it.

The “experts” who assert this should attend a High Power Rifle Match at their local range.  While such matches are dominated by military and ex-military, there are plenty of accomplished civilian participants who compete at a very high level.  In any event, the type of shooting Paddock was doing has nothing to do with sniping. The best response comes from a friend who – let’s just say he is ex-military and fought in jungles many years ago.

All of the commenters you attached are hung up on the sniper concept, but this guy was playing bullet hose and wouldn’t have needed scopes (although he may have had them).  He was “aiming” by seeing people fall down and moving the flow of bullets around.  Think back to all the Vietnam video you’ve seen with troops doing magazine dumps from the waist without aiming.

My analysis

I offer my analysis, for what it’s worth, of the first four strings of fire with the caveat that none of us in the public has access to all the evidence, much less the skills to do a thorough job.

First, a note about terminology.  In the video cited below, there are four strings of shots, not volleys.  We’re not talking about tennis here.  Similarly, several newscasters have talked about the shooter’s tripods.  The photos from Paddock’s suite clearly show bipods on the guns.  I have never, ever seen someone shooting from a tripod.  How much confidence would a motorcyclist have in a review of a new bike that repeatedly and erroneously refers to the machine as a trike?  That is why I am critical of so many of these “experts.”

A number of the videos I have seen are spliced.  I used this one because it seems to be continuously shot with the same phone (2.14 total runtime).  I count four strings:

  1. 0.0 thru 0.9 (does not start at beginning of string; in this video, the first string lasts from 0.05 to 0.15)
  2. 0.46 thru 0.56
  3. 1.13 thru 1.23 (slight pause in string)
  4. 1.42 thru 1.52

Assuming 600 rounds per minute, a good figure for the AR platform, means that each of these strings is 100 rounds, so he must have been using 100-round drum magazines, for you can hear no pauses long enough for a magazine change.  The few pictures available of his room show ARs with 30-round magazines. He may have used those later, but the above videos do not have short strings.

Initial reports said shooting went on for over four minutes.  Some assert that he could have fired only 360 rounds in those four minutes, therefore he could not have killed and wounded so many.  Apparently, it lasted much longer:

  • “The gunshots lasted for 10 to 15 minutes. It didn’t stop,” said witness Rachel de Kerf.
  • Gunfire started at 10:08 and “by 10:20 p.m., there are some indications the shooting has stopped, although it is not clear.”

I am skeptical that he could shoot such long, smooth strings with bump-fire stocks.  In the time I have spent at ranges, I have never heard anyone get off even a 30-round string with bump fire without many hiccups, much less 100 rounds.  But I am not an expert on such accessories, nor have I done extensive testing of them.

I hope this analysis adds some signal to a noisy discussion.  I have tried to draw only narrow conclusions from the limited evidence available.  Wildly extrapolating from incomplete data helps no one.

As to possible explanations for Paddock’s behavior, see this for an account of a homicidal psychotic break, induced by prescription drugs, in a loved one.  John Ringo is a well known science-fiction author.

Henry Percy is the nom de guerre of a writer in Arizona.  He may be reached at saler.50d[at]gmail.com.



Source link

The United States Must Meet the North Korean Threat


On October 6, 2017, the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize of 2017 to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).  The text of the award stated, “We live in a world where the risk of nuclear weapons being used is greater than it has been for a long time[.] … [T]here is a real danger that more countries will try to procure nuclear weapons, as exemplified by North Korea.”

The world, most of all President Donald Trump but even China, is well aware of that particular danger.  Trump has declared that “we cannot allow [Kim’s] dictatorship to threaten our nation or our allies with unimaginable loss of life[.] … [T]he goal is denuclearization.”  But would the United States totally destroy North Korea to defend itself and allies?  U.S. policymakers are divided on the issue.

Secretary of state Rex Tillerson speaks of direct lines, a couple of direct channels, and of communication with North Korea, while President Trump appears to believe that it is a waste of time to try negotiating.  This war of words may be undesirable, but both sides acknowledge that the use of a nuclear weapon by North Korea would start a war it could not win and would lead to Kim’s destruction.  All would suffer.

Similarly, the world is aware that the North Korean nuclear arsenal is growing and that its ballistic missile force is now a real danger.  The country has conducted six ballistic nuclear tests, has a hydrogen bomb, and has intercontinental ballistic capability that can hit the western part of the U.S. and perhaps also Washington, D.C. and New York City.

Though there are legitimate differences of opinion on how to respond to North Korea’s nuclear arsenal, there are no differences about the dictator Kim Jong-un, the ruler since he took power in 2011.  He is a ruthless killer who has acted to consolidate power, murdering his uncle Jang Song-thaek, “a traitor for all ages,” and ordering the assassination of his half-brother, Kim Jong-nam, in Malaysia.  He acts to maintain his grip on power as well as to create a nuclear state.  By one estimate, he has executed 340, including 140 senior political and military officials. 

Kim has used barbarous language, a substitute for physical execution, about American leaders.  Most recently, Donald Trump is “mentally deranged and is a dotard” (September 22, 2017); Barack Obama was “reminiscent of a wicked black monkey,” (2014); Hillary Clinton “sometimes looks like a primary schoolgirl and sometimes a pensioner going shopping” (July 23, 2009); and George W. Bush was a “hooligan, bereft of any personality as a human being” (May 2005).

Others might disagree, but U.S. CIA sources hold that Kim is not crazy, but a “rational actor” concerned with the survival of his regime.  More likely, the unpredictable Kim wants to make North Korea a relevant player in international affairs, respected for its military strength and especially its nuclear strength, assert his equivalence with Donald Trump, and make North Korea a prominent issue at the U.N. General Assembly and other international meetings.

The present ruler’s grandfather, Kim Il-sung, on becoming the ruler in 1972, wanted nuclear weapons from the start and built a nuclear research reactor in Yongbyon that could be a source of plutonium.  At the time, both Russia and China denied him help in nuclear weapons.  However, his nuclear program continued.  In October 1994, North Korea signed an Agreed Framework (A.F.) by which it would freeze and eventually dismantle its nuclear program in exchange for receiving from the U.S. energy assistance in the form of heavy fuel oil and light water reactors.  George W. Bush referred to it as “a mistake.”  The Agreed Framework broke down in 2002, when it was found that North Korea had a highly enriched secret nuclear program, had bought technology and equipment abroad, and had made secret deals with Pakistan.  In January 2003, North Korea withdrew from the A.F.

Russia got Kim to sign a nuclear proliferation treaty in 1985, but North Korea didn’t give the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) access to Yongbyon and was slow to fulfill the treaty.  Again, in December 1991, North and South Korea agreed to a declaration for denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, and the North said it would agree to an inspections regime.  But North Korea again cheated regarding its plutonium and refused to comply.  It was hiding its nuclear program; it had bought technology and equipment abroad and had made deals with Pakistan.

In response, sanctions were imposed by the U.S. in the belief that only strong economic pressure can lead to a change in N.K. policy on nuclear weapons and other programs.  This is being done in spite of the fact that the N.K. 1972 constitution, amended in 2012, identifies the regime as socialist and revolutionary, a dictatorship of people’s democracy, and as a “nuclear armed state.”

It is too late and absurd to suggest that the problem of the Korean peninsula would be solved if it were given back to Japan.  Another factor is that the 1953 armistice between the two Koreas that suspended the Korean civil war has lasted for 64 years, though Kim has renounced it and declared that N.K. has a right to a pre-emptive nuclear weapon.

The international community sees N.K. as dangerous and provocative.  What is to be done?  There are four alternatives, if not real possibilities.

One is the removal of Kim, peacefully or not.  Political peaceful procedures are not of course yet available in the country.  But the use of force by the U.S. is unlikely for two reasons.  The first is that assassination is not normal U.S. procedure.  The other realistic factor is that Kim is well protected and spends much time in underground facilities.

Second is the elimination of nuclear facilities – again, difficult, because much of N.K. facilities, and its important military infrastructure, is underground.  Moreover, N.K. has considerable military assets, especially artillery along the border with South Korea.  In the event of hostilities, N.K. could strike the 24,000 U.S. troops in South Korea.

In any case, is the U.S. missile defense system, a mixture of the Patriot missiles, the terminal high-altitude area defense system (THAAD), and the Aegis defense system, and the ground -based midcourse defense system (GMD), able to destroy a N.K. nuclear warhead?

Third is strengthening of sanctions by other states as well as the U.S.  Sanctions have targeted institutions and people involved in developing and financing the weapons programs, arms trade, human rights abuses, oil imports, violations of cyber-security, limiting access to the international finance system, and entities that contribute to the country’s export earnings.  These institutions and people cannot do business with the U.S. and American companies.  U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley wanted the strongest possible sanctions, especially a complete oil embargo, and punitive measures against Kim.  The U.N. resolution on the issue calls for a limit of imports of refined and crude oil to 8.5 million barrels a year.  Also, textiles, accounting for a quarter of N.K. export income, are banned.

China has been helpful to an extent: already it has up a system of inspectors and checkpoints, including the use of military dogs in an effort to close down N.K. smuggling routes.  China has also been admitting N.K. defectors.

Finally and fourth, what is left is diplomacy between N.K. and the U.S. and rest of the world.  Here Russia and especially China which must play a role, as the latter has begun in imposing sanctions.  Everyone knows that nuclear weapons pose a constant threat to humanity.  The U.S. has a prominent role in meeting that threat.  Whether Kim is crazy or not, U.S. actions should be doing the difficult thing right now.  The impossible will take a little longer.

On October 6, 2017, the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize of 2017 to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).  The text of the award stated, “We live in a world where the risk of nuclear weapons being used is greater than it has been for a long time[.] … [T]here is a real danger that more countries will try to procure nuclear weapons, as exemplified by North Korea.”

The world, most of all President Donald Trump but even China, is well aware of that particular danger.  Trump has declared that “we cannot allow [Kim’s] dictatorship to threaten our nation or our allies with unimaginable loss of life[.] … [T]he goal is denuclearization.”  But would the United States totally destroy North Korea to defend itself and allies?  U.S. policymakers are divided on the issue.

Secretary of state Rex Tillerson speaks of direct lines, a couple of direct channels, and of communication with North Korea, while President Trump appears to believe that it is a waste of time to try negotiating.  This war of words may be undesirable, but both sides acknowledge that the use of a nuclear weapon by North Korea would start a war it could not win and would lead to Kim’s destruction.  All would suffer.

Similarly, the world is aware that the North Korean nuclear arsenal is growing and that its ballistic missile force is now a real danger.  The country has conducted six ballistic nuclear tests, has a hydrogen bomb, and has intercontinental ballistic capability that can hit the western part of the U.S. and perhaps also Washington, D.C. and New York City.

Though there are legitimate differences of opinion on how to respond to North Korea’s nuclear arsenal, there are no differences about the dictator Kim Jong-un, the ruler since he took power in 2011.  He is a ruthless killer who has acted to consolidate power, murdering his uncle Jang Song-thaek, “a traitor for all ages,” and ordering the assassination of his half-brother, Kim Jong-nam, in Malaysia.  He acts to maintain his grip on power as well as to create a nuclear state.  By one estimate, he has executed 340, including 140 senior political and military officials. 

Kim has used barbarous language, a substitute for physical execution, about American leaders.  Most recently, Donald Trump is “mentally deranged and is a dotard” (September 22, 2017); Barack Obama was “reminiscent of a wicked black monkey,” (2014); Hillary Clinton “sometimes looks like a primary schoolgirl and sometimes a pensioner going shopping” (July 23, 2009); and George W. Bush was a “hooligan, bereft of any personality as a human being” (May 2005).

Others might disagree, but U.S. CIA sources hold that Kim is not crazy, but a “rational actor” concerned with the survival of his regime.  More likely, the unpredictable Kim wants to make North Korea a relevant player in international affairs, respected for its military strength and especially its nuclear strength, assert his equivalence with Donald Trump, and make North Korea a prominent issue at the U.N. General Assembly and other international meetings.

The present ruler’s grandfather, Kim Il-sung, on becoming the ruler in 1972, wanted nuclear weapons from the start and built a nuclear research reactor in Yongbyon that could be a source of plutonium.  At the time, both Russia and China denied him help in nuclear weapons.  However, his nuclear program continued.  In October 1994, North Korea signed an Agreed Framework (A.F.) by which it would freeze and eventually dismantle its nuclear program in exchange for receiving from the U.S. energy assistance in the form of heavy fuel oil and light water reactors.  George W. Bush referred to it as “a mistake.”  The Agreed Framework broke down in 2002, when it was found that North Korea had a highly enriched secret nuclear program, had bought technology and equipment abroad, and had made secret deals with Pakistan.  In January 2003, North Korea withdrew from the A.F.

Russia got Kim to sign a nuclear proliferation treaty in 1985, but North Korea didn’t give the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) access to Yongbyon and was slow to fulfill the treaty.  Again, in December 1991, North and South Korea agreed to a declaration for denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, and the North said it would agree to an inspections regime.  But North Korea again cheated regarding its plutonium and refused to comply.  It was hiding its nuclear program; it had bought technology and equipment abroad and had made deals with Pakistan.

In response, sanctions were imposed by the U.S. in the belief that only strong economic pressure can lead to a change in N.K. policy on nuclear weapons and other programs.  This is being done in spite of the fact that the N.K. 1972 constitution, amended in 2012, identifies the regime as socialist and revolutionary, a dictatorship of people’s democracy, and as a “nuclear armed state.”

It is too late and absurd to suggest that the problem of the Korean peninsula would be solved if it were given back to Japan.  Another factor is that the 1953 armistice between the two Koreas that suspended the Korean civil war has lasted for 64 years, though Kim has renounced it and declared that N.K. has a right to a pre-emptive nuclear weapon.

The international community sees N.K. as dangerous and provocative.  What is to be done?  There are four alternatives, if not real possibilities.

One is the removal of Kim, peacefully or not.  Political peaceful procedures are not of course yet available in the country.  But the use of force by the U.S. is unlikely for two reasons.  The first is that assassination is not normal U.S. procedure.  The other realistic factor is that Kim is well protected and spends much time in underground facilities.

Second is the elimination of nuclear facilities – again, difficult, because much of N.K. facilities, and its important military infrastructure, is underground.  Moreover, N.K. has considerable military assets, especially artillery along the border with South Korea.  In the event of hostilities, N.K. could strike the 24,000 U.S. troops in South Korea.

In any case, is the U.S. missile defense system, a mixture of the Patriot missiles, the terminal high-altitude area defense system (THAAD), and the Aegis defense system, and the ground -based midcourse defense system (GMD), able to destroy a N.K. nuclear warhead?

Third is strengthening of sanctions by other states as well as the U.S.  Sanctions have targeted institutions and people involved in developing and financing the weapons programs, arms trade, human rights abuses, oil imports, violations of cyber-security, limiting access to the international finance system, and entities that contribute to the country’s export earnings.  These institutions and people cannot do business with the U.S. and American companies.  U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley wanted the strongest possible sanctions, especially a complete oil embargo, and punitive measures against Kim.  The U.N. resolution on the issue calls for a limit of imports of refined and crude oil to 8.5 million barrels a year.  Also, textiles, accounting for a quarter of N.K. export income, are banned.

China has been helpful to an extent: already it has up a system of inspectors and checkpoints, including the use of military dogs in an effort to close down N.K. smuggling routes.  China has also been admitting N.K. defectors.

Finally and fourth, what is left is diplomacy between N.K. and the U.S. and rest of the world.  Here Russia and especially China which must play a role, as the latter has begun in imposing sanctions.  Everyone knows that nuclear weapons pose a constant threat to humanity.  The U.S. has a prominent role in meeting that threat.  Whether Kim is crazy or not, U.S. actions should be doing the difficult thing right now.  The impossible will take a little longer.



Source link

How to Survive: Lessons from Puerto Rico


The takedown of the Puerto Rican power grid by Hurricane Irma will, we hope, provide a teaching moment.  The United States power grid is vulnerable, and the consequences of a widespread failure, especially if lengthy, will be a disaster of monumental proportions.  This should not be a new realization.  Serious analysts such as the Foundation for Resilient Societies and the EMP Commission have been warning us for a long time.  The warnings have been ignored or even actively opposed by the electric power industry.

America’s electric grid can be brought down by sabotage or by natural forces, such as the hurricane in Puerto Rico.  Hurricanes have limited geographic scope, but solar storms can affect the entire country.  As was shown by the Puerto Rican experience, without electricity, credit and debit cards don’t work.  Cash becomes king.  Without electricity, communications become dubious.

Among natural threats to the electric grid, solar storms are perhaps the most serious.  A solar storm causes the Earth’s magnetic field to move and induce large direct currents in long conductors, such as power lines and communications cables.  The 1859 Carrington Event was so powerful that some telegraph operators were electrocuted by voltages induced in the wires.  Fortunately, in 1859, the power grid did not exist.  A smaller March 1989 solar storm crashed the Quebec power grid and destroyed a large power transformer at the Salem nuclear generating station in New Jersey.  If the 1989 solar storm had been as severe as the Carrington Event, much of the North American grid could have gone down for months or years.

Since a solar storm is associated with the mass ejection of charged particles from the Sun, it is possible to have a warning and possibly prevent damage to the grid by turning off the grid until the storm is over.  Obviously, a deliberate blackout would be inconvenient, but not as inconvenient as a blackout lasting for years.  But electric utilities are unlikely to proactively turn off the grid, because their insurance companies have policy exclusions for “intentional acts.”

Deliberate physical attack and sabotage of the grid are also major threats.  But perhaps the biggest danger would be an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) created by detonation of a nuclear device above the atmosphere.  The North Koreans have already threatened an EMP attack.

A small nuclear weapon detonated 200 miles above Kansas would create no direct damage – only a bright flash in the sky.  But gamma rays released from the explosion would interact with atoms in the upper atmosphere, knocking electrons loose.  These electrons would move in a spiral path as they interact with the Earth’s magnetic field.  Strong electric and magnetic fields would strike the entire United States as a kind of electromagnetic shockwave.  There would also be slower variations in the Earth’s magnetic field, much like the effect of a solar storm.

An EMP attack has the potential to damage computers and other semiconductor-dependent devices.  Stalled automobiles could fill the roads and block emergency vehicles.  Control system for power plants and refineries could fail.  Above all, there could be widespread destruction of the all-important high-voltage grid transformers.  Critical infrastructure can be hardened against EMP, as, indeed, our military systems are and have been for decades.

If there is a large-scale blackout lasting for weeks or longer, the immediate problem is food; water; and, in cold areas, sufficient heat to sustain life.  Without power, the normal food pipeline would be disabled.

To bolster societal resilience, everyone could be required to have a 30-day supply of food and water, or local areas could have warehouses and distribution schemes to fill the void.  Certainly, there is no shortage of food.  At any time, there are enough corn and soybeans stored in the Midwest to feed the entire country for five years.  The problem is distribution, as well as preparing the grain as an edible meal.  As an example, the Las Vegas, Nevada metropolitan area has about 2 million people.  If each person consumes two pounds of corn and soybeans per day, then 4 million pounds, or 2,000 tons, a day is required.  A train with 100 cars could transport enough food to Las Vegas for five days’ consumption.  But will their diesel engines be disabled by the EMP?  Can the railroad operate if much of its electronic infrastructure is damaged?  Can sufficient diesel fuel be found to operate the trains?

The grid’s high-voltage transformers would take years to replace and must be protected against damage.  These devices can be as big as a house and are mainly manufactured in Asia.  Lead time is months or years and would be longer if large numbers of orders were placed.  The manufacture of these transformers is an example of a critical industry that should be preserved and protected within the U.S.  Protecting the thousands of  transformers with automatic devices might cost $50 billion, or possibly much less, but this cost is nothing against the $50-billion-per-day cost of a national blackout.  Other capital equipment, such as generators and turbines, must also be protected, but these devices are probably less vulnerable to damage than the transformers.

In times of crisis, there must be a plan to produce and distribute enough diesel fuel to keep the railroads and heavy trucking industry operating.  The railroad engines and truck tractors must be hardened against an EMP.  The idea that it is enough to have 24 or 48 hours’ worth of fuel for emergency generators simply postpones the disaster for 24 or 48 hours.  There has to be a plan to keep essential services going until the grid can be bought back up.  Without communications, nothing can be coordinated, so basic means of communication, such as the cell phone network, must be protected.

The problem in Puerto Rico of truck drivers being unavailable because they were busy taking care of their families is instructive.  Organizations equipped for emergencies, such as the military, fire departments, and police, are too small in numbers and not necessarily located where they are needed to hold things together in a widespread blackout.  A volunteer corps of people ready to deal with emergencies is necessary.  Such a corps would also be invaluable for emergencies such as earthquakes and hurricanes.

Everything comes down to having a plan to deal with what might happen.  There is no such plan today.  In the case of a national blackout, help will not come from outside the affected area, because the entire country is affected.

The threat by North Koreans to detonate a nuclear device over the Pacific Ocean could be a ploy to test an EMP device.  A variation of nuclear weapons is devices, probably with low explosive yield, designed to have a high gamma ray output to create a powerful EMP.  Given such devices, along with delivery systems, the North Koreans could institute a devastating attack on the United States.  They must be denied this technology.  Nuclear weapons often have a shell or “tamper” made of a heavy metal to contain the explosion for a few more nanoseconds before the bomb blows itself apart and aborts the increasing chain reaction.  The tamper increases explosive yield but also absorbs gamma rays.

It would be incredibly foolish to allow the North Koreans to continue on the path of developing the means to destroy the American economy and perhaps kill a large part of the population.  The North Koreans are clearly working on these technologies that permit a weak state to launch a devastating attack against a strong state, and further, they are obviously prepared to sell the technology to states that are even more dangerous, such as Iran.  The Russians and Chinese are obviously delighted to have a proxy that can attack or threaten the U.S. while said Russians and Chinese protest their innocence.  We can have a small war now or something much worse later.

Norman Rogers writes often on environmental and political topics.  He has a website.

The takedown of the Puerto Rican power grid by Hurricane Irma will, we hope, provide a teaching moment.  The United States power grid is vulnerable, and the consequences of a widespread failure, especially if lengthy, will be a disaster of monumental proportions.  This should not be a new realization.  Serious analysts such as the Foundation for Resilient Societies and the EMP Commission have been warning us for a long time.  The warnings have been ignored or even actively opposed by the electric power industry.

America’s electric grid can be brought down by sabotage or by natural forces, such as the hurricane in Puerto Rico.  Hurricanes have limited geographic scope, but solar storms can affect the entire country.  As was shown by the Puerto Rican experience, without electricity, credit and debit cards don’t work.  Cash becomes king.  Without electricity, communications become dubious.

Among natural threats to the electric grid, solar storms are perhaps the most serious.  A solar storm causes the Earth’s magnetic field to move and induce large direct currents in long conductors, such as power lines and communications cables.  The 1859 Carrington Event was so powerful that some telegraph operators were electrocuted by voltages induced in the wires.  Fortunately, in 1859, the power grid did not exist.  A smaller March 1989 solar storm crashed the Quebec power grid and destroyed a large power transformer at the Salem nuclear generating station in New Jersey.  If the 1989 solar storm had been as severe as the Carrington Event, much of the North American grid could have gone down for months or years.

Since a solar storm is associated with the mass ejection of charged particles from the Sun, it is possible to have a warning and possibly prevent damage to the grid by turning off the grid until the storm is over.  Obviously, a deliberate blackout would be inconvenient, but not as inconvenient as a blackout lasting for years.  But electric utilities are unlikely to proactively turn off the grid, because their insurance companies have policy exclusions for “intentional acts.”

Deliberate physical attack and sabotage of the grid are also major threats.  But perhaps the biggest danger would be an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) created by detonation of a nuclear device above the atmosphere.  The North Koreans have already threatened an EMP attack.

A small nuclear weapon detonated 200 miles above Kansas would create no direct damage – only a bright flash in the sky.  But gamma rays released from the explosion would interact with atoms in the upper atmosphere, knocking electrons loose.  These electrons would move in a spiral path as they interact with the Earth’s magnetic field.  Strong electric and magnetic fields would strike the entire United States as a kind of electromagnetic shockwave.  There would also be slower variations in the Earth’s magnetic field, much like the effect of a solar storm.

An EMP attack has the potential to damage computers and other semiconductor-dependent devices.  Stalled automobiles could fill the roads and block emergency vehicles.  Control system for power plants and refineries could fail.  Above all, there could be widespread destruction of the all-important high-voltage grid transformers.  Critical infrastructure can be hardened against EMP, as, indeed, our military systems are and have been for decades.

If there is a large-scale blackout lasting for weeks or longer, the immediate problem is food; water; and, in cold areas, sufficient heat to sustain life.  Without power, the normal food pipeline would be disabled.

To bolster societal resilience, everyone could be required to have a 30-day supply of food and water, or local areas could have warehouses and distribution schemes to fill the void.  Certainly, there is no shortage of food.  At any time, there are enough corn and soybeans stored in the Midwest to feed the entire country for five years.  The problem is distribution, as well as preparing the grain as an edible meal.  As an example, the Las Vegas, Nevada metropolitan area has about 2 million people.  If each person consumes two pounds of corn and soybeans per day, then 4 million pounds, or 2,000 tons, a day is required.  A train with 100 cars could transport enough food to Las Vegas for five days’ consumption.  But will their diesel engines be disabled by the EMP?  Can the railroad operate if much of its electronic infrastructure is damaged?  Can sufficient diesel fuel be found to operate the trains?

The grid’s high-voltage transformers would take years to replace and must be protected against damage.  These devices can be as big as a house and are mainly manufactured in Asia.  Lead time is months or years and would be longer if large numbers of orders were placed.  The manufacture of these transformers is an example of a critical industry that should be preserved and protected within the U.S.  Protecting the thousands of  transformers with automatic devices might cost $50 billion, or possibly much less, but this cost is nothing against the $50-billion-per-day cost of a national blackout.  Other capital equipment, such as generators and turbines, must also be protected, but these devices are probably less vulnerable to damage than the transformers.

In times of crisis, there must be a plan to produce and distribute enough diesel fuel to keep the railroads and heavy trucking industry operating.  The railroad engines and truck tractors must be hardened against an EMP.  The idea that it is enough to have 24 or 48 hours’ worth of fuel for emergency generators simply postpones the disaster for 24 or 48 hours.  There has to be a plan to keep essential services going until the grid can be bought back up.  Without communications, nothing can be coordinated, so basic means of communication, such as the cell phone network, must be protected.

The problem in Puerto Rico of truck drivers being unavailable because they were busy taking care of their families is instructive.  Organizations equipped for emergencies, such as the military, fire departments, and police, are too small in numbers and not necessarily located where they are needed to hold things together in a widespread blackout.  A volunteer corps of people ready to deal with emergencies is necessary.  Such a corps would also be invaluable for emergencies such as earthquakes and hurricanes.

Everything comes down to having a plan to deal with what might happen.  There is no such plan today.  In the case of a national blackout, help will not come from outside the affected area, because the entire country is affected.

The threat by North Koreans to detonate a nuclear device over the Pacific Ocean could be a ploy to test an EMP device.  A variation of nuclear weapons is devices, probably with low explosive yield, designed to have a high gamma ray output to create a powerful EMP.  Given such devices, along with delivery systems, the North Koreans could institute a devastating attack on the United States.  They must be denied this technology.  Nuclear weapons often have a shell or “tamper” made of a heavy metal to contain the explosion for a few more nanoseconds before the bomb blows itself apart and aborts the increasing chain reaction.  The tamper increases explosive yield but also absorbs gamma rays.

It would be incredibly foolish to allow the North Koreans to continue on the path of developing the means to destroy the American economy and perhaps kill a large part of the population.  The North Koreans are clearly working on these technologies that permit a weak state to launch a devastating attack against a strong state, and further, they are obviously prepared to sell the technology to states that are even more dangerous, such as Iran.  The Russians and Chinese are obviously delighted to have a proxy that can attack or threaten the U.S. while said Russians and Chinese protest their innocence.  We can have a small war now or something much worse later.

Norman Rogers writes often on environmental and political topics.  He has a website.



Source link

Muslim Brotherhood Political Infiltration on Steroids


In 2008, during the largest terrorism funding trial in U.S. history, United States v. Holy Land Foundation, a document published in 1991 outlined Muslim plans to take over America.  An Explanatory Memorandum:  On the General Strategic Goal for the Group, seized in a 2004 FBI raid of the Virginia home of a Muslim Brotherhood operative, was presented during the trial as evidence of “a Civilization-Jihadist Process.” It outlined the Muslim Brotherhood goal to conduct a “grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated.”  

For several decades, this well-organized and well-funded effort to subvert our constitutional republic and replace it with an Islamic government under Islamic law has focused on infiltrating all levels and branches of the U.S. government. More recently, the Muslim Brotherhood presence within the American political landscape has intensified, accelerated, and become more visible with the establishment of several nonprofit political action organizations. The Muslim Brotherhood stated goal of transforming American society from within in preparation for an eventual takeover is clearly moving forward fueled by the efforts of these groups and their burgeoning success within the umma or Muslim community.

As early as 1987, a declassified FBI confidential informant document described the Muslim Brotherhood as “political action front groups with no traceable ties to Muslim groups” that are organizing external political support to influence both public opinion in America and the U.S. government and its leadership. The informant who disclosed this information told authorities that the MB acknowledged the need to “peacefully get inside the United States Government” for the purpose of meeting “the ultimate goal of overthrowing all non-Islamic governments.” 

In 2010, one such “peaceful” group, Project Mobilize, was created by M. Yasser Tabbara to empower and engage the political potential of the Muslim community.  Its mission statement called for the exploitation of the growing political capital of the umma, the promotion of issues important to Muslim Americans and the development of strategies for political advocacy on their behalf.  In 2011, Project Mobilize began fielding its first Muslim candidates for political office.  

Project Mobilize’s founder, Tabbara, is a former executive director the Chicago chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate and unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas funding trial. Other board members include Safaa Zarzour, the secretary general of another unindicted co-conspirator and Muslim Brotherhood front, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and Oussama Jammal, vice president of the Mosque Foundation, a known center for terrorism fundraising and haven for Hamas operatives.  

In 2014, at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., representatives from eight Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups announced formation of the United States Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), a political party for Muslims and the first religion-based political party in U.S. history. At the meeting, the founders disclosed their plans to expand Muslim participation in the American political process by encouraging more Muslims to vote, work on political campaigns and run for office themselves.

Oussama Jammal, who was involved in fundraising for convicted terrorist Sami al-Arian and serves as director of the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliate, the Muslim American Society (MAS), headed the new organization. MAS, created in the early 1990s, was itself begun as the U.S. branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and was designated a terrorist group by the United Arab Emirates. Mazen Mokhtar, another USCMO founding member, also had MAS ties, having served as its executive director. An Egyptian-born imam, Mokhtar served as webmaster for a site that solicited funds for Taliban and Chechen jihadists. In 2007, he was indicted by then-New Jersey Attorney General Chris Christie for tax evasion and filing false tax returns. 

In 2015, a new organization, Jetpac Inc. (Justice, Education and Technology Policy Advocacy Center) was begun by Nadeem Mazen, Massachusett’s first Muslim city council member. Jetpac was established as an “open call for American Muslims to immerse themselves in local politics.” The group trains American Muslim community leaders and educates them about the political process. According to their website, they have prepared more than 15 aspiring candidates for office in Maine, New York, Rhode Island, and California. The group’s activities include development of proprietary software for social media outreach, fundraising and canvassing techniques, media communication and campaign strategy skills as well as advice on combatting negative impressions of Muslims. In addition, Jetpac teaches a course on U.S. government and politics at a Massachusetts Islamic school that focuses on grassroots organizing and the history of the civil rights movement.

Following his stint as a Cambridge City Council member, Mazen, a founding member of CAIR Massachusetts and former president of MIT’s MSA, announced plans to run for Congress as the third elected Muslim after Keith Hakim Ellison (D-MN) and Andre Carson (D-IN). Just this week, Mazen launched his campaign for Massachusetts’ 3rd Congressional District seat. A telling indicator of his more radical views is the fact that Mazen opposed President Obama’s Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) program and criticized moderate Muslim groups as promoters of “imperialistic-style” initiatives to “foist secular attitudes on Muslims.”

Another political race worth watching involves a CAIR official running for the Des Moines, Iowa, city council. Somali Muslim refugee and president of CAIR Iowa, Abshir Omar, is running as a Democratic Socialist to represent downtown Des Moines and the city’s southwest side. City council members can wield significant power and influence over all aspects of community life. Typically, they make key appointments such as city managers, police and fire department heads, library board members, parks and recreation supervisors, transportation directors, as well as administrators for arts councils, housing authorities and planning commissions.  

Meanwhile, the background of Tahirah Amatul-Wadud, another Islamist operative who intends to run for governor of Massachusetts in the future, should cause grave concern. Wadud, who served on the Massachusetts Commission on the Status of Women, has extensive radical Islamic ties. She served as an executive board member for CAIR Massachusetts and as the general counsel for Jamaat ul-Fuqra a.k.a. Muslims of America, a group alleged to have close ties to Al Qaeda.  

Jamaat ul-Fuqra was founded in 1980 by Pakistani Sheikh Gilani, who was associated with shoe bomber Richard Reid and implicated in the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Danny Pearl. According to the Clarion Project, Wadud posted an anti-Semitic article by Gilani on her Facebook that claimed Jewish complicity in the 9/11 and Pearl Harbor attacks.

Jamaat ul-Fuqra has done more than simply issue social media propaganda, however. The terrorist entity has approximately two dozen paramilitary training centers across the U.S. and its members participated in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. It is known to proselytize and recruit black prison inmates and reportedly seeks “to purify Islam through violence.” The Center for Policing Terrorism maintains that Jamaat ul-Fuqra “may be the best positioned group to launch an attack on the United States, or, more likely, help al-Qaeda to do so.”  

Another Muslim with terrorist ties is a political candidate in Arizona. Southern Baptist convert to Islam, Deedra Abboud, a Phoenix attorney and community activist who served as the executive director of CAIR Arizona and is currently associated with the Muslim American Society, is seeking the Democratic nomination for U.S. senator in her state. Abboud opposes President Trump’s policy to temporarily ban refugees from designated Muslim countries rife with terrorist activity. She also opposed the U.S. cruise missile bombing that followed Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons on Syrian civilians. Identifying as a feminist, Abboud defends her husband’s right under Islam to have four wives although she admits that she wouldn’t be happy with it. She helped raise bail money for deceased Muslim terrorist, Elton Simpson, when he was convicted of lying to the FBI about his plans to engage in Islamic terrorist activities in Somalia. Simpson, in the first ISIS-claimed attack on U.S. soil, tried to kill participants at the Mohammed cartoon contest in Garland, Texas in 2015. In 2009, Abboud made a statement about the acceptability of police learning Arabic to better understand the Muslim community. However, she objected to the study of Arabic as a law enforcement tool for investigating potential Islamic terrorist activity deeming it targeting.

Self-described devout Muslim and son of Egyptian immigrant parents, Abdul El-Sayed, has substantial connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and is running for governor of Michigan. A medical doctor who served as the executive director of the Detroit Health Department at age 30, his background includes serving as vice president of his MSA chapter at the University of Michigan during his college years. His wife, Sarah Jukaku, who is described as “a mental health doctor,” wears a hijab. His father-in-law is a former president and current board member of CAIR Michigan. 

Quite troubling is the fact that El-Sayed is endorsed by Linda Sarsour, an advocate for the Hamas initiative for the boycott, divestment, and sanctioning of Israel and an activist who played a major role in pressuring the NYPD to discontinue its surveillance of mosques and Muslim organizations post-9/11. That surveillance effort had yielded critical intelligence about terrorist activities. Sarsour is one of El-Sayed’s biggest supporters and is reportedly helping fundraise for El-Sayed’s gubernatorial campaign. She is also a close friend of the Muslim Brotherhood-connected Huma Abedin, has family members who have been arrested for aiding and abetting Hamas, openly supports shariah law and has been a featured speaker at Muslim Brotherhood groups that were designated as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial. 

All of the above demonstrate that the Muslim Brotherhood is increasing its political clout in America. As more of its candidates are elected to office, deeper penetration of American society comes within their grasp. Their stated goal to destroy our society from within and replace the Constitution with the tenets of shariah could become a reality. Their adeptness at appealing to the American public by using the coded language of multiculturalism and by professing a moderate Islam has proved to be an unfortunate asset. In the words of former FBI analyst and expert on the Muslim Brotherhood, John Guandolo, who has closely studied their deceptive language and appearance, Muslim Brotherhood operatives are “suit-wearing jihadis who pretend they’re friendly but they’re not.” America should be alert and aware. 

In 2008, during the largest terrorism funding trial in U.S. history, United States v. Holy Land Foundation, a document published in 1991 outlined Muslim plans to take over America.  An Explanatory Memorandum:  On the General Strategic Goal for the Group, seized in a 2004 FBI raid of the Virginia home of a Muslim Brotherhood operative, was presented during the trial as evidence of “a Civilization-Jihadist Process.” It outlined the Muslim Brotherhood goal to conduct a “grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated.”  

For several decades, this well-organized and well-funded effort to subvert our constitutional republic and replace it with an Islamic government under Islamic law has focused on infiltrating all levels and branches of the U.S. government. More recently, the Muslim Brotherhood presence within the American political landscape has intensified, accelerated, and become more visible with the establishment of several nonprofit political action organizations. The Muslim Brotherhood stated goal of transforming American society from within in preparation for an eventual takeover is clearly moving forward fueled by the efforts of these groups and their burgeoning success within the umma or Muslim community.

As early as 1987, a declassified FBI confidential informant document described the Muslim Brotherhood as “political action front groups with no traceable ties to Muslim groups” that are organizing external political support to influence both public opinion in America and the U.S. government and its leadership. The informant who disclosed this information told authorities that the MB acknowledged the need to “peacefully get inside the United States Government” for the purpose of meeting “the ultimate goal of overthrowing all non-Islamic governments.” 

In 2010, one such “peaceful” group, Project Mobilize, was created by M. Yasser Tabbara to empower and engage the political potential of the Muslim community.  Its mission statement called for the exploitation of the growing political capital of the umma, the promotion of issues important to Muslim Americans and the development of strategies for political advocacy on their behalf.  In 2011, Project Mobilize began fielding its first Muslim candidates for political office.  

Project Mobilize’s founder, Tabbara, is a former executive director the Chicago chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate and unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas funding trial. Other board members include Safaa Zarzour, the secretary general of another unindicted co-conspirator and Muslim Brotherhood front, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and Oussama Jammal, vice president of the Mosque Foundation, a known center for terrorism fundraising and haven for Hamas operatives.  

In 2014, at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., representatives from eight Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups announced formation of the United States Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), a political party for Muslims and the first religion-based political party in U.S. history. At the meeting, the founders disclosed their plans to expand Muslim participation in the American political process by encouraging more Muslims to vote, work on political campaigns and run for office themselves.

Oussama Jammal, who was involved in fundraising for convicted terrorist Sami al-Arian and serves as director of the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliate, the Muslim American Society (MAS), headed the new organization. MAS, created in the early 1990s, was itself begun as the U.S. branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and was designated a terrorist group by the United Arab Emirates. Mazen Mokhtar, another USCMO founding member, also had MAS ties, having served as its executive director. An Egyptian-born imam, Mokhtar served as webmaster for a site that solicited funds for Taliban and Chechen jihadists. In 2007, he was indicted by then-New Jersey Attorney General Chris Christie for tax evasion and filing false tax returns. 

In 2015, a new organization, Jetpac Inc. (Justice, Education and Technology Policy Advocacy Center) was begun by Nadeem Mazen, Massachusett’s first Muslim city council member. Jetpac was established as an “open call for American Muslims to immerse themselves in local politics.” The group trains American Muslim community leaders and educates them about the political process. According to their website, they have prepared more than 15 aspiring candidates for office in Maine, New York, Rhode Island, and California. The group’s activities include development of proprietary software for social media outreach, fundraising and canvassing techniques, media communication and campaign strategy skills as well as advice on combatting negative impressions of Muslims. In addition, Jetpac teaches a course on U.S. government and politics at a Massachusetts Islamic school that focuses on grassroots organizing and the history of the civil rights movement.

Following his stint as a Cambridge City Council member, Mazen, a founding member of CAIR Massachusetts and former president of MIT’s MSA, announced plans to run for Congress as the third elected Muslim after Keith Hakim Ellison (D-MN) and Andre Carson (D-IN). Just this week, Mazen launched his campaign for Massachusetts’ 3rd Congressional District seat. A telling indicator of his more radical views is the fact that Mazen opposed President Obama’s Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) program and criticized moderate Muslim groups as promoters of “imperialistic-style” initiatives to “foist secular attitudes on Muslims.”

Another political race worth watching involves a CAIR official running for the Des Moines, Iowa, city council. Somali Muslim refugee and president of CAIR Iowa, Abshir Omar, is running as a Democratic Socialist to represent downtown Des Moines and the city’s southwest side. City council members can wield significant power and influence over all aspects of community life. Typically, they make key appointments such as city managers, police and fire department heads, library board members, parks and recreation supervisors, transportation directors, as well as administrators for arts councils, housing authorities and planning commissions.  

Meanwhile, the background of Tahirah Amatul-Wadud, another Islamist operative who intends to run for governor of Massachusetts in the future, should cause grave concern. Wadud, who served on the Massachusetts Commission on the Status of Women, has extensive radical Islamic ties. She served as an executive board member for CAIR Massachusetts and as the general counsel for Jamaat ul-Fuqra a.k.a. Muslims of America, a group alleged to have close ties to Al Qaeda.  

Jamaat ul-Fuqra was founded in 1980 by Pakistani Sheikh Gilani, who was associated with shoe bomber Richard Reid and implicated in the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Danny Pearl. According to the Clarion Project, Wadud posted an anti-Semitic article by Gilani on her Facebook that claimed Jewish complicity in the 9/11 and Pearl Harbor attacks.

Jamaat ul-Fuqra has done more than simply issue social media propaganda, however. The terrorist entity has approximately two dozen paramilitary training centers across the U.S. and its members participated in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. It is known to proselytize and recruit black prison inmates and reportedly seeks “to purify Islam through violence.” The Center for Policing Terrorism maintains that Jamaat ul-Fuqra “may be the best positioned group to launch an attack on the United States, or, more likely, help al-Qaeda to do so.”  

Another Muslim with terrorist ties is a political candidate in Arizona. Southern Baptist convert to Islam, Deedra Abboud, a Phoenix attorney and community activist who served as the executive director of CAIR Arizona and is currently associated with the Muslim American Society, is seeking the Democratic nomination for U.S. senator in her state. Abboud opposes President Trump’s policy to temporarily ban refugees from designated Muslim countries rife with terrorist activity. She also opposed the U.S. cruise missile bombing that followed Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons on Syrian civilians. Identifying as a feminist, Abboud defends her husband’s right under Islam to have four wives although she admits that she wouldn’t be happy with it. She helped raise bail money for deceased Muslim terrorist, Elton Simpson, when he was convicted of lying to the FBI about his plans to engage in Islamic terrorist activities in Somalia. Simpson, in the first ISIS-claimed attack on U.S. soil, tried to kill participants at the Mohammed cartoon contest in Garland, Texas in 2015. In 2009, Abboud made a statement about the acceptability of police learning Arabic to better understand the Muslim community. However, she objected to the study of Arabic as a law enforcement tool for investigating potential Islamic terrorist activity deeming it targeting.

Self-described devout Muslim and son of Egyptian immigrant parents, Abdul El-Sayed, has substantial connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and is running for governor of Michigan. A medical doctor who served as the executive director of the Detroit Health Department at age 30, his background includes serving as vice president of his MSA chapter at the University of Michigan during his college years. His wife, Sarah Jukaku, who is described as “a mental health doctor,” wears a hijab. His father-in-law is a former president and current board member of CAIR Michigan. 

Quite troubling is the fact that El-Sayed is endorsed by Linda Sarsour, an advocate for the Hamas initiative for the boycott, divestment, and sanctioning of Israel and an activist who played a major role in pressuring the NYPD to discontinue its surveillance of mosques and Muslim organizations post-9/11. That surveillance effort had yielded critical intelligence about terrorist activities. Sarsour is one of El-Sayed’s biggest supporters and is reportedly helping fundraise for El-Sayed’s gubernatorial campaign. She is also a close friend of the Muslim Brotherhood-connected Huma Abedin, has family members who have been arrested for aiding and abetting Hamas, openly supports shariah law and has been a featured speaker at Muslim Brotherhood groups that were designated as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial. 

All of the above demonstrate that the Muslim Brotherhood is increasing its political clout in America. As more of its candidates are elected to office, deeper penetration of American society comes within their grasp. Their stated goal to destroy our society from within and replace the Constitution with the tenets of shariah could become a reality. Their adeptness at appealing to the American public by using the coded language of multiculturalism and by professing a moderate Islam has proved to be an unfortunate asset. In the words of former FBI analyst and expert on the Muslim Brotherhood, John Guandolo, who has closely studied their deceptive language and appearance, Muslim Brotherhood operatives are “suit-wearing jihadis who pretend they’re friendly but they’re not.” America should be alert and aware. 



Source link