Wednesday, June 29, 2016





Nigel Farage 20years ago you laughed at me, you are not laughing now


Urth Laguna Beach

California Muslimas sue cafe for discrimination; cafe countersues

CAIR connected pro-Palestinian activist 

Sara Farsakh supplies the impetus
Urth Caffe hijabis

Hugh Fitzgerald: “Civilizational Jihad” at the Urth Caffé

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Urth Caffe
On April 22, at the Urth Caffé in Laguna Beach, California, seated at one of the most desirable tables – that is, those on the outside patio, in the very front, with the unobstructed view of the beach — seven Muslim women, all wearing hijabs, talked and dallied. On their table, as on all the tables at the café, was a placard on which, prominently displayed, was the announcement that at peak times, patrons might be required to vacate the highest-in-demand tables after 45 minutes. At 8 p.m., 45 minutes after the women had had their order taken (and somewhat longer since they had entered), the manager, seeing they were giving no signs of leaving, and having other patrons waiting for those desirable tables – it was a very busy Friday night – came over to remind the women of the 45-minute rule. He also suggested that they might, if they wished, in lieu of leaving the café, simply move to another (but less desirable) table. The women balked at the suggestion. He went away, but returned at 8:15 to repeat his request and remind them of the café’s policy. They continued to refuse to move, and finally the management found it necessary to call the police, who arrived at 8:40, and escorted the women out.
The seven Muslim women were quick to get a lawyer, and to bring suit against the café for what they described as anti-Muslim “discrimination” against them. Their argument was that they were singled out for being asked to leave because they were Muslims wearing hijabs. The café’s owners pointed out that much of the café’s clientele consisted of Muslims; that among those patrons were women in hijabs who were routinely served, and, indeed, that very night, other hijab-wearing women were in the café and served without incident; that far from having an anti-Muslim policy, the café welcomed Muslim patrons, who were particularly attracted to the Urth Caffé by its ban on alcohol; that up to 90% of the patrons on Friday nights were Muslims, and it would have made no sense for the café’s owners to enforce an “anti-Muslim” policy which would be devastating to their business; and finally, that one of the café’s co-owners, Jilla Berkman, was herself a Muslim. The 45-minute policy for high-demand tables was hardly applied precipitously or unfairly, for they were allowed to stay after the 45-minute time limit was up — but when they still refused to move after the second warning, Berkman finally found it necessary to call the police.
Threatened with a lawsuit, the café’s owners contacted David Yerushalmi of the American Freedom Law Center, who has specialized in defending victims of the legal jihad being waged through suits, or threats of suits, by Muslims in this country who have shown themselves determined to press even the flimsiest of claims of “discrimination” by non-Muslims. Yerushalmi said the plaintiffs had been asked “only to abide by the cafe’s policy to give up their high-demand outside patio table after 45 minutes to allow other customers, including those wearing hijabs, to enjoy the experience.” He said the cafe’s security video showed long lines outside the restaurant door the night of the alleged incident. And in a move that must have filled the Muslim plaintiffs with chagrin and alarm, Yerushalmi – as he had promised he would – countersued: “This lawsuit claiming religious discrimination is a fraud and a hoax on the courts and the media,” Yerushalmi told LawNewz in a statement. “It is nothing short of an abuse of process to extort public apologies and other accommodations from my client, Urth Caffé.”
Judging by all of these facts, in attempting to claim “discrimination” against Muslims where there was none, it is likely that these women will come to regret that they made such a Muslim mountain out of a molehill, that they had started flinging the charge of “discrimination” without investigating the application of the 45-minute rule for those tables most in demand, that they hadn’t realized a co-owner of the café was herself Muslim, that they overlooked all the other Muslim patrons, including hijabbed women, ready to testify that they had never had problems at the Urth Caffé where, on Friday nights, up to 90% of the clientele is Muslim. They will live to regret it because they are bound to lose not only their own suit, but the countersuit as well. Yerushalmi is not going to let them get away with what he has correctly called “civilizational jihad.” He noted in a court document filed on June 22, 2016 that there was “an underlying agenda for this litigation that has nothing to do with justice,” LawNewz reported, adding that Yerushalmi characterized Sara Farsakh (the ringleader and spokesman of the Muslim women, and a pro-Palestinian activist) as a college-aged agitator for this “civilizational jihad.”
What is “civilizational jihad”? It’s an attempt, effective in its stillicidal and quiet way, to promote changes to even minor aspects of Western life to fit Islamic requirements. Little by little, sometimes less and sometimes more, non-Muslims in the West find themselves changing their ways in order to meet Muslim demands. “Civilizational jihad” is not the jihad of suicide bombers or traditional combat (qitaal). It is, rather, the sum of all the attempts by Muslims in the West to turn every perceived slight, real or imaginary, which Muslims claim to suffer, and every refusal by non-Muslims to modify their own laws, customs, and mores, as an attack on Muslims, or on Islam.
“Civilizational jihad” is often, but not always, conducted through the courts, where Muslims (or CAIR, as their self-appointed representative) press every possible point of legal advantage by raising every conceivable charge of discrimination. It’s designed to keep non-Muslims off balance, to make them afraid not to exempt Muslims from rules that are meant to apply to all, and to suggest that “religious discrimination” is involved even in the most implausible situations, and to do so knowing that even if the charge is unlikely to stick, merely making it can scare many non-Muslims, who don’t want the bad publicity (of being described as “Islamophobic” or “racist”), and who then would rather yield to Muslim demands. In the case of the Urth Caffé, what these seven Muslim women were seeking was a public apology from the café’s owners – an admission of “discrimination” against Muslims — and possibly more, including whatever sum of money might compensate them for their feelings (as their ringleader Sara Farsakh put it) of “embarrassment and humiliation.”
And that is how, little by little, non-Muslims in the West, in order to avoid the headaches of bad publicity, or lawsuits, so often give in to Muslim demands. It’s Jihad at the capillary level. For example, there are the changes in institutional food offerings, such as the banning of pork products in federal prisons, which elicited a comment from a satisfied Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR: “In general we welcome the change because it’s facilitating the accommodation of Muslim inmates.” The Obama Administration seems determined to back up, through threats of a loss of federal funding, Muslim dietary requirements imposed on Muslim and non-Muslim alike: “In another publicized case [in Kent, Washington], when all pork products were banned from a school’s menu, an angry parent, Tom Brabo, spoke with that school’s Director of Nutritional Services, who informed him that “he was well aware of the issues (and the slippery slope) with the changes to menu options due to Muslim religious beliefs, but he said lots of Muslims had complained and threatened the school by reporting them to the U.S. Department of Education.” Mr. Brabo was told that if the school system doesn’t “accommodate the Muslim dietary needs that their federal and state funding would be cut or pulled.”
Still another example is the attempt by CAIR and Muslim parents to have Islam introduced as part of the required curriculum in public schools. School administrators and teachers may monitor the faculty and textbooks for statements deemed anti-Muslim, with the faculty warned to watch what they say, and the textbook publishers reminded of the need to cover Islamic civilization in all its “splendor,” as in Islamic Spain, with all the bad parts left out. Some of these efforts have failed, some succeeded, but the attempts keep coming and will not stop. Of course when Islam is introduced into the school curriculum, Muslims want to make sure that their guidance as to what will be taught is taken, and they monitor both teachers and textbooks for the content they convey. Anything upsetting in Islam, such as the more than one hundred “jihad verses” of the Qur’an, will be left out. The goal is to introduce non-Muslim students to a sanitized and soothing version of Islam. No mention of little Aisha, the Khaybar Oasis, the Battle of the Trench, Asma bint Marwan, Abu Afak. But plenty about Qur’an 2:256 and 5:32, and the folkloristic-and-family aspects of Ramadan. Students are to be made comfortable with, accepting of, even entranced by the exoticism of, Muslim practices.
The “Wear A Hijab Day” is one such effort. Another is the attempt to make sure that the social studies textbooks do not dwell, ideally do not even mention, the ideology of Jihad – unless Jihad is defined as “an inner spiritual struggle.” The students, young, gullible, and uncritical, come out believing the propaganda to which they have been subjected, but now they consider themselves enlightened as to the “real nature of Islam.” We all know the absurdity of those charges — “Islamophobia” and “racism”– but they continue to have a potent effect in inhibiting criticism of Islam in the classroom; even the few teachers who may know something about Islam will have no desire to share it with the students, or to take issue with texts that have received CAIR’s sinister imprimatur. Why make trouble for themselves? Is it worth it? Who will back them up? The local politicians? The Obama Administration? And what about relying on disinterested scholarship? Should that student go to buy a book on Islam so as to “find out for himself” what it’s all about, the “authoritative” book most likely to be recommended by a store clerk will surely be a farrago of Islamic apologetics by — you guessed it – the omnipresent Karen Armstrong.
Municipal pools start setting aside hours for Muslim women only. At Ramadan this year, some high schools held their graduation parties late, so that Muslim students would not be troubled by any interference with the Ramadan fast. Then there are the changes made in medical services because of the Muslim husbands who insist that their wives can be seen only by female doctors (a demand that, of course, cannot always be met), or who demand to be present for all examinations of their womenfolk, or sometimes even demand to serve as the interpreter and interface between the Muslim female patient and Western medical personnel.
This can wreak havoc with a hospital’s schedule for medical personnel, but instead of simply but firmly explaining that Western hospitals will not change their ways given the burden such changes impose, great attempts are made to satisfy Muslim needs as to segregation by sex. Giving in to these demands is to replace Western views of the relationship of women to men with the Muslim view. And it need not be the result of a specific request. It is enough for officials to know that such requests have somewhere been made, to anticipate trouble and head it off by proleptically yielding to a Muslim demand that has not yet been made and is merely a plausible possibility, and sometimes when it is even less than that.
This is what constitutes “civilizational jihad” by Muslims: to push, to prod, to seek every weak spot where non-Muslims can be bullied or scared into changing their rules so as to meet perceived Muslim requirements, or to yield to demands for special treatment. Nor is this craven surrender limited to one state or one country. In Germany, cafes and schools have been banning pork products, including bratwurst sausages that, protesters rightly noted, are “intrinsic to German culture.” Nonetheless, an increasing number of public canteens, child daycare centers and schools have stopped serving sausages, bacon and ham over religious considerations. And so Muslim dietary laws are essentially made mandatory for everyone.
There is some fighting back:
Now members of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU party are fighting to keep pork on the menu, insisting the consumption of pork is part of German culture. 
Daniel Günther, party representative, claimed that pork products were being taken off the menu in schools, nurseries and canteens across the country. 
He said: “The protection of minorities – including for religious reasons – must not mean that the majority is overruled in their free decision by ill-conceived consideration.’
But whether or not pork products are brought back where they’ve been banned, isn’t it already a fantastic situation when pork products of all kinds have been banned in some German schools and prisons, in that country whose cuisine’s alpha and omega is pork? Note that in some cases, the banning of pork products came not in response to a Muslim demand, but was imposed in anticipation of such a demand being made: that is, non-Muslims are now yielding to what they think Muslims will want, or to what they assume must be done to “make Muslims feel comfortable” even if it limits the freedoms of the native non-Muslims. It is this craven surrender in advance to the “civilizational jihad” that most disturbs. Even a country like Sweden, that has long prided itself on gender equality, has now instituted women-only swimming hours. And many cities and towns all over the Western world have done the same, and for the same reasons: to enforce Muslim demands for segregation by sex, whatever the harm done to non-Muslims and their ideal of gender equality.
Another example of “civilizational jihad” is the attempt to offer nunc-pro-tunc backdating of Islam, as part of Western – and American – history. Consider the fabulous claims made that Christopher Columbus included Muslims in his crew. Not only is there not a shred of evidence to support this, but Columbus was a deeply devout Christian; he wanted to discover an alternate route for Europeans to the East precisely because Muslims had, with the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, managed to seal off entirely from Christian Europe the old route to the East. Columbus would never have taken on members of the enemy – Islamic – camp for his crew. But so effective has this Muslim rewriting of history been that, in 2004, a State Department employee put out a claim about Columbus’s Muslim crew members: in a press release entitled “Islamic Influence Runs Deep in American Culture,” Phyllis McIntosh of the State Department’s Washington File claimed: “Islamic influences may date back to the very beginning of American history. It is likely that Christopher Columbus, who discovered America in 1492, charted his way across the Atlantic Ocean with the help of an Arab navigator.”
There is no evidence for this, so why did McIntosh make this absurd claim that was surely authorized by higher-ups (even though “may date back” and “it is likely that” are weasel words providing deniability)? She, and her Department, either felt there was no harm in trying to curry favor with Muslims (history is silly putty to some; they shape it as they will), or were under pressure to rewrite history as part of a feelgood-outreach campaign to American Muslims. Whichever it was, the rewriting of history in such fashion can certainly be considered part of a “civilizational jihad.” And the same could be said for Barack Obama’s repeated never-ceases-to-amaze mantra of “Islam has always been part of America,” and for his attempt to suggest that the fact that Jefferson owned a Qur’an signified sympathy for Islam (all it did is signify his interest, as a curious and cultivated man, in finding out something about Islam), or claiming that he held an “Iftar” dinner for a Muslim envoy when all Jefferson did was move forward by a few hours a state dinner, when requested by that envoy, because for him – but not for Jefferson – it was Ramadan.
These offensive rewritings of history, these diminishments to our institutional cuisine, these careful censorings of our textbooks and course syllabi, these changes to medical services, are all different aspects of the steadfast many-pronged campaign of “civilizational jihad.” And those seven hijabbed women refusing to vacate the most in-demand table at a café, in direct violation of clearly-displayed rules about the need to do so during peak hours, and claiming that being subject to that general rule constituted “discrimination,” can be understood, as David Yerushalmi observed, as part of that “civilizational jihad.” Yerushalmi has taken the right approach, to be just as aggressive as the Muslim practitioners of lawfare, and to counter sue those seven women, in order to teach a lesson that will not be forgotten. But there is a need for hundreds of others, akin to David Yerushalmi, who are aggressive litigators, well-versed in American civil rights law and in the Sharia, and are determined defenders of a West that has been under stealthy assault but which is now giving signs, both here and in Europe, of shaking its locks and rousing itself to this hydra-headed Muslim threat. At long last, and not a moment too soon.

Women say restaurant booted them because they're Muslim, owner's wife is Muslim
Published on May 6, 2016
After seven Muslim women filed a civil rights lawsuit against Urth Caffe, saying they were targeted and humiliated by management at the Laguna Beach location, the restaurant chain announced its intention to counter-sue, claiming the lawsuit is fraudulent.

The women, represented by three attorneys, discussed their grievances against Los Angeles-based Urth Caffe in a press conference Tuesday at the Plaza of Flags at the Santa Ana Civic Center.

“The women were singled out and targeted because they appeared to be Muslim,” said attorney Mohammad Tajsar. “Urth Caffe targeted these women as a way of cleansing their location of women that appeared to be Muslim to appease the Islamaphobia in a predominantly white Laguna Beach community.”

Shallom Berkman, owner of Urth Caffe, disputed the claims. His wife, Jilla, who is Muslim, was the one who advised management to call police after the women became rude toward restaurant staff, he said.

Urth Caffe announced Wednesday that it is being represented by the American Freedom Law Center, a firm that specializes in faith-based lawsuits.

“Urth Caffe did not discriminate against the women who have filed this fraudulent lawsuit,” said David Yerushalmi, co-founder and senior counsel for the center. “The lead plaintiff (Sara Farsakh) in the frivolous lawsuit is … a college-age activist for Palestinian causes. We intend to sue Farsakh and her co-conspirators for trespass and to seek damages.”

Yerushalmi said he will file a counter-complaint quickly.

CAIR connected pro-Palestinian activist 
Sara Farsakh
I am completely appalled by the racist and Islamophobic treatment some friends and I were subjected to by staff at Urth Caffé in Laguna Beach last night. What began as a night out with some friends ended as a painful and embarrassing reminder of what it is like to be visibly Muslim—even in liberal California. By visibly Muslim, I mean women who wear the hijab, or headscarf.
We arrived at Urth Caffe and placed our order at about 7:15 pm. We found some empty seats and waited for dinner to be served. About 20 or 30 minutes later our food arrived. After dinner some of us decided to order dessert and coffee. They got up to place their orders and then waited for their food to arrive. Similar to everyone else at the cafe, we were just talking and having a good time catching up with each other.
At about 8:00 pm, an employee, Tino, came to our table and told us that we needed to leave the restaurant within the next ten minutes. Tino explained that they were anticipating a busy evening and needed to clear tables and that per their policy anyone that had been there for over 45 minutes was required to share or give up their table to other customers.
At that time at least a third of the seats in the cafe were vacant. The line to place an order was short. I've been to Urth Caffe before at much busier times and have stayed well over 45 minutes without ever being told to leave.
We told Tino that our orders had just arrived and that we couldn’t reasonably finish and leave within 10 minutes. He said it didn’t matter and we had to leave.
We asked Tino if he had asked any other parties to hurry up and leave. He replied that he was instructing anyone that had been there for over 45 minutes. The party on the table next to us (a group of white women) overheard our conversation and were shocked. They told us they had been sitting far longer than we had but had never been told to prepare to leave.
The policy the employee was referring to was printed and placed on a placard on each table (see the picture below). It reads:
"During our busy rush times, if you have already been at a table for 45 minutes or longer, please share or give your table to someone who is waiting. If tables are available, you are certainly welcome to enjoy Urth for as long as you desire."
We pointed out to Tino that according to the policy, so long as there are tables available we could remain for as long as we wished. We also pointed out that, just within our vicinity there were a number of empty tables (see the video below).
Tino simply ignored our responses and again insisted we had 10 minutes to leave or he would call the police to escort us out. We tried talking to multiple staff members to understand why we were being asked to leave and how it was in compliance with the policies stated on the tables. None of the staff could give us a clear answer, nor did they themselves seem to understand why we had been asked to leave.
I asked a different staff member for copies of our receipts and for the owner’s contact information. She replied saying that the owner was aware of the situation. I asked her if the owner was aware that some of us had just ordered moments before and barely received our order when we were told to leave, and that there were many tables throughout the restaurant completely empty. And when I asked why we were told to leave when we weren't breaking any policy, she simply said we can ask anyone to leave, and if you don't want to come back that's completely fine.
A security guard approached us and said he just had to follow what management told him to do. He also added that he had never been asked to enforce this policy when tables were available and understood why we found it to be absurd. At all times, the staff was rude, disrespectful and demeaning towards us.
Within moments the police were called. We explained to them what had happened and that we had done nothing wrong. They agreed that according to the policy stated on the table we weren’t breaking any policy but simply said that the restaurant, rightly or wrongly, had a right to refuse service to anyone.
I truly believe that because I was sitting with visibly Muslim women, we were singled out when we were asked to leave. I can’t even begin to express the feelings of embarrassment and humiliation as police officers were called to escort out a group of Muslim women from a restaurant. Shame on you Urth Caffe for your disgusting and racist treatment of paying customers.

Congressman Brat: We Are In A Culture War With Islam


Published on Jun 24, 2016
Gov. David Ige is signing a bill that makes the state the first to enter gun owners into an FBI database that will automatically notify police if an island resident is arrested anywhere else in the country.

Ige said in a statement today the legislation is about community safety and responsible gun ownership. He says it will help law enforcement agencies protect Hawaii residents and visitors.

Learn More:

Hawaii: First State to Put Gun Owners 

in FBI Criminal Database

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

“This is about our community’s safety and responsible gun ownership. This system will better enable our law enforcement agencies to ensure the security of all Hawaii residents and visitors to our islands,” argued Hawaii Governor David Ige as he signed SB 2954. The legislation authorizes county police departments in Hawaii to enroll firearms applicants and individuals registering their firearms, in a criminal record monitoring service.
The system, known as “Rap Back,” is a service of the FBI that provides criminal record monitoring for authorized government agencies such as law enforcement. According to the Star-Advertiser, the bill "makes the state the first to enter gun owners into an FBI database that will automatically notify police if an island resident is arrested anywhere else in the country."
This illustrates vividly what “gun control” laws are all about. They are not so much about controlling guns as controlling “applicants” and “individuals” who register their firearms.
According to a press release issued by Governor Ige’s office, the new legislation will allow county police departments to determine whether firearms owners will be allowed to keep their guns.
In other words, the gun owners' constitutional right to keep and bear arms can be revoked, not through a judicial proceeding with constitutional due process, but at the discretion of law-enforcement agencies. The governor’s office argues that it is all legal, because, “This bill has undergone a rigorous legal review process by our Attorney General’s office and we have determined that it is our responsibility to approve this measure for the sake of our children and families.” So the AG has replaced due process in Hawaii?
Hawaii is the first state to take such an action — placing its own residents in a federal criminal record database even if they have not yet committed any crime — and monitoring them for possible wrongdoing anywhere in the country.
Previously, the use of the database was limited to monitoring possible criminal activities by individuals already under investigation, or people in positions of trust, such as school teachers and daycare workers.
Amy Hunter, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislation Action, declared, “As you can imagine, the NRA finds this one of the most extreme bills we’ve ever seen.”
Even visitors from other states to the popular tourist destination will find themselves added to the database. Any individual carrying a gun into Hawaii will be required to register, and will be added to the “Rap Back” list. No provision exists for them to be removed from that list.
The author of the bill, Democrat State Senator Will Espero, argued that it was “common sense legislation that does not hurt anyone.” He said the bill “doesn’t even say your gun will automatically be taken away; it just means local police will be notified.”
The law also allows the Hawaii Criminal Justice Data Center to access firearms registration data.
Governor Ige has also signed two other gun control bills. HB 625 states that harassment by stalking and sexual assault are among the offenses that disqualify a person from owning, possessing, or controlling any firearm or ammunition.
HB 2632 is even more onerous. It will require that gun owners surrender their firearms and ammunition to the chief of police if they have been disqualified from owning a firearm and ammunition after a diagnosis of significant behavioral, emotional, or mental disorder, or emergency or involuntary hospitalization in a psychiatric facility. This measure will actually allow the chief of police to seize the firearms and ammunition of all disqualified gun owners who do not surrender their weapons after receiving a written notice.
HB 2632 raises some serious issues. If a physician notifies the chief of police that someone is emotionally disturbed, and the gun owner is given a written notice by the chief of police, no due process is required before a person’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is suspended. After all, under due process of law, this person would only have been accused of being emotionally disturbed. What is the legal standard of proof?
Additionally, the person does not even have to have been formally charged with having a committed a crime before his or her constitutional rights are infringed. Where is the check on an abuse of this power by the chief of police?
While in the Heller case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment was designed to protect the right of an individual to keep and bear arms, and was not simply connected to active service in a state militia or national guard, this law demonstrates that enemies of the Constitution are prepared to do what they can to restrict that right. In the near term, it is not likely that the Congress or a state legislature will attempt to confiscate all firearms. But we can expect more laws of this nature, which are intended to make it increasingly difficult for an individual to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.
It would be comparable to saying one has the right to petition the government, but only if the legislature permits it: clearly an absurdity.
As for more laws on the horizon, expected Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton favors a law that will allow gun manufacturers to be sued if one of the guns they have manufactured is used in the commission of a crime. The practical effect would be to drive gun manufacturers out of business. After all, if someone could sue General Motors every time a Chevrolet Impala was involved in a crime, automobile manufacturing would come to a halt. If someone used a baseball bat to murder someone, could the company that made that bat be sued? That would certainly lead to difficulty in playing a baseball game!
The end result of such a law, allowing lawsuits against gun manufacturers if one of their guns is used in a crime, would be the termination of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. After all, even if citizens were “allowed” to keep their firearms, no more bullets would be manufactured for civilian use. And a firearm without ammunition would be as useless as an automobile without an engine. Perhaps a gun owner could confront a burglar with an empty gun.
Unless, of course, a police chief in Honolulu had already taken the gun away, using his “discretion.”

Supreme Court Decides Domestic Abusers Can Lose Their Gun Rights

"On Monday the Supreme Court handed down a ruling, 6-2, that people convicted of domestic abuse can lose their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. The only justice who even seemed to care about that was Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented. Sonia Sotomayor also dissented, for different reasons."
"In a 6-2 opinion issued today, the U.S. Supreme Court extended a federal statute which bans firearm possession by any person convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" to cover those individuals who have "misdemeanor assault convictions for reckless (as contrasted to knowing or intentional) conduct.""

Second Amendment Rights Are Only For The Chosen Few Elite


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

The Obama administration’s immigration policies continue to be the subject of controversy, as documents reveal that it is not only illegal immigrants who have been able to circumvent immigration requirements, but legal ones as well. What's worse, changes to the process were made without congressional approval or intervention. 
In a column for Breitbart News, former Congressman Tom Tancredo writes, “Under the Obama administration’s expansive interpretation of executive authority, legal immigrants seeking citizenship through the nation’s naturalization process are now exempt from a key part of the Oath of Allegiance.”
That provision is the pledge to “bear arms on behalf of the United States” and “perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States.”
The Immigration and Nationality Act has always allowed exemptions from armed service to the country, instead requiring either "noncombat service" or "work of national importance under civilian direction when required by law" if a person held opposing views "by reason of religious training and belief."
The modification, which the Obama administration is calling a clarification of the requirements, allows immigrants to get an exemption to the oath to bear arms or perform noncombat service, 
based on a "conscientious objection.The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) website announced the changes last year: 
Reciting the Oath is part of the naturalization process. Candidates for citizenship normally declare that they will 'bear arms on behalf of the United States' and 'perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States' when required by the law.
The International Business Times explains that a candidate
• May be eligible for modifications based on religious training and belief, or conscientious objection arising from a deeply held moral or ethical code.
• Is not required to belong to a specific church or religion, follow a particular theology or belief, or to have had religious training in order to qualify.
• May submit, but is not required to provide, an attestation from a religious or other type of organization, as well as other evidence to establish eligibility.
But this is clearly a change in the law — done administratively. The law expressly states that exemptions will only be given based upon belief in a Supreme Being and not for personal objections:
The term "religious training and belief" as used in this section shall mean an individual's belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but does not include essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code.
Are such changes an improvement in U.S. immigration law? Or do they provide a huge legal loophole facilitating a path to citizenship by immigrants who express no loyalty to the United States and do not assimilate? Readers could certainly debate this question. But there is no question that under the U.S. Constitution, Congress, not the president, makes law, and the Obama administration is making law, not clarifying the law, which is against the law.
Moreover, it is indeed ironic that while naturalized citizens are now allowed to raise religious or conscientious objections to taking up arms for the United States, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services determined last week that two Catholic universities could not raise conscientious objections to providing health insurance that includes elective abortions.
Disagreeing with the change to the oath, Tancredo notes,
The pledge to help defend America was good enough for the 6.6 million immigrants naturalized since 2005 and good enough for the over 15 million naturalized since 1980, but Obama’s appointees at the USCIS think that is too much to ask of the 18.7 million estimated legal immigrants eligible today for eventual naturalization or the 750,000 who will be naturalized in the coming year.
Appearing on Breitbart News Sunday with host Stephen Bannon, Tancredo explained that he believed the change was made to the oath in order to encourage immigrants from Muslim countries to become naturalized, which makes some sense since Islam does not forbid participating in warfare but many Muslims might be personally opposed to aiding the U.S. armed forces: “This is a decision they made themselves because as the Muslim immigration population grows into this country, this may be something that would reduce the numbers, you know, if people actually had to do that,” Tancredo told Bannon.
And while the change to the oath was made last year, without any fanfare and without approval from Congress, Tancredo contends that Congress should since have taken action to reverse the changes. In his Breitbart News, he asked:
Why doesn’t Congress change the law and take control of the Oath of Allegiance? So far, there is no indication that the Republican leadership will do so.
But the law is already very specific, so Congress wouldn't need to "change the law," merely see to its enforcement; it is now just being ignored. Some members of Congress have indeed noted the change and publicly criticized it. In a statement on his official website, for example, Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) stated, “All citizens of the United States — native or naturalized — should have that same sense of patriotism and duty. The Obama Administration’s announced change to the Oath of Allegiance undermines what it means to be a citizen of the United States.”
Tancredo asserts that since it has been one year since the change was implemented and nothing has been done to correct it, this is yet another example of an impotent Congress.



Robert Spencer: Should we censor ourselves to avoid offending Muslims?
Published on Jun 29, 2016
Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer discusses recent recommendations by David Petraeus and Larry Summers that Americans should censor themselves in order to avoid offending Muslims, and explains why these suggestions are wrongheaded and dangerous for free societies.

Reporter Chases Gen. David Petraeus Through The Streets of Dresden, Germany:
Bilderberg 2016
Published on Jun 11, 2016 David Petraeus goes out for a jog and Infowars Reporter Rob Dew asks him if he had to resign over an email scandal isn't it fair that Hillary Clinton resign from the Democratic Party for doing essentially the same thing. 


UN Vehicle - Jeff Stern


U.S. Independence Attacked as Never Before by UN Interdependence

What Is The Government Preparing For?

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

You may not be getting prepared for a major national disaster, but the government sure is.  I have been informed that in recent months numerous emergency food companies have been contacted by the government, and they have been told that their inventories could potentially be seized in the event of a significant emergency.  And as you will see below, the government recently participated in an exercise that simulated “an unprecedented global food crisis lasting as long as a decade”.  In addition, NPR has just revealed details about the very secretive Strategic National Stockpile program that is storing billions of dollars worth of medical supplies in warehouses around the nation.  This is a program that most Americans do not even know exists.  On top of everything else, strange reports of military vehicles with UN markings have been coming in from all over the nation.  So what in the world is the government up to?  Why are they working so feverishly hard to get prepared?
Let’s begin our discussion with the Strategic National Stockpile.  According to NPR, there are at least six of these warehouses at various locations around the country, and they are holding at least seven billion dollars worth of supplies…
Thousands of lives might someday depend on this stockpile, which holds all kinds of medical supplies that the officials would need in the wake of a terrorist attack with a chemical, biological or nuclear weapon.
The location of these warehouses is secret. How many there are is secret. (Although a former government official recently said at a public meeting that there are six.) And exactly what’s in them is secret.
“If everybody knows exactly what we have, then you know exactly what you can do to us that we can’t fix,” says Burel. “And we just don’t want that to happen.”
What he will reveal is how much the stockpile is worth: “We currently value the inventory at a little over $7 billion.
The NPR report indicates that most of the supplies are medical in nature, and this includes “millions of doses of vaccines“.
Could it be possible that the government is anticipating a major pandemic in our near future?
As I mentioned above, the government has also been preparing for a major food crisis.  The following comes from Vice
The US national security industry is planning for the impact of an unprecedented global food crisis lasting as long as a decade, according to reports by a government contractor.
The studies published by CNA Corporation in December 2015, unreported until now, describe a detailed simulation of a protracted global food crisis from 2020 to 2030.
The simulation, titled ‘Food Chain Reaction’, was a desktop gaming exercise involving the participation of 65 officials from the US, Europe, Africa, India, Brazil, and key multilateral and intergovernmental institutions.
So could we actually see such a major food crisis during the years ahead?
Well, according to Reuters global demand for food has already been surging, and one new report indicates that it won’t be too long before we could see “a doubling of food prices”…
Swelling populations and demand for food combined with ever scarcer water and land resources could lead to a doubling of food prices and trigger civil unrest in some developing countries, a new report says.
Demand for food with a higher environmental impact, such as meat, has surged as emerging countries like China and India grow in size and in wealth, said Martin Halle, policy analyst at Global Footprint Network (GFN).
“A few things are very clear: the demand for food is going up tremendously because of population growth,” he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
Of course it is the job of the government to prepare for various apocalyptic scenarios.  If government officials weren’t planning for how our nation would make it through a major disaster, they wouldn’t be doing their jobs.
But what are we to make of all of the strange sightings of UN vehicles all over America recently?
According to my friend Ray Gano, UN military vehicle activity has recently been reported “in Texas, Mississippi, Arizona, Florida and now in Virginia“.
In particular, a series of photos of white UN military vehicles traveling through Virginia that were posted on Facebook by Jeff Stern has popped up in news stories worldwide.
Is all of this activity unusual?  If so, should we be alarmed by it?  Brandon Turbeville apparently thinks so…
For the past day or so, military convoys have been witnessed traveling both North and South, with lines of equipment ranging from Humvees, troop transport trucks, and tankers to military personnel following the convoy in civilian vehicles. Interestingly enough, many of the soldiers traveling in the convoy were seen wearing helmets, an unusual procedure for a simple convoy. In addition, the convoys were carrying what appeared to be construction equipment.
Although the troop movement may indeed have been a routine convoy and the United Nations vehicles may also have been a routine shipment from a manufacturing facility or even a simple and benign transport, the controversy brewing in the United States elections and the potential for civil unrest, the dangers of economic collapse, and the potential conflict with Russia are all potentials for use of United Nations “peace keepers” inside the United States as many have posited in the past as well as for some type of “martial law” scenario.
The armored UN vehicles that were spotted being transported through Virginia are quite impressive.  Here is some info on them from the Daily Mail
The VX weighs in at 16,600lbs.
Seating for two plus eight crew.
Windows do not roll down, instead there are locked gun ports on the vehicle that can be opened to shoot bullets out or accept documents in and are even big enough to pass through a can of soda.
In addition, these heavily armored vehicles are designed to withstand a gas attack and to be impervious to small arms fire…
Internal fans can keep bad air out, such as in the event of a gas attack, or bring fresh air in when reversed.
PA system to speak to the outside world.
Remote-controlled spotlights on the roof and pairs of red and blue strobe lights are mounted to each four sides of the vehicle.
Every window on the vehicle is filled with ballistic glass that’ll shed small arms fire like they’re pebbles and even resist a close-range shot from a high-powered rifle.
Each vehicle has nine gun ports, and so when they are fully manned they can lay down a very impressive field of fire.
At the end of the day, I don’t know what all of this means.
Everything that I just detailed could just be part of normal government activity that is simply receiving some unusual attention right now.
Or of course it could also be possible that the government is getting prepared for something really big, but even if they were, they would not tell us in advance anyway.
Personally, I am convinced that this period of time leading up to the election will be highly chaotic in America, and so my eyebrows definitely perked up when I came across these various news stories.
But ultimately the significance of all of this will be determined by what happens during the weeks and months to come.  Without a doubt things have become much more serious in this nation lately, and I have a feeling that they are about to get a whole lot more serious…

VIDEO: UN military vehicles seen rolling down Virginia interstate
Published on Jun 27, 2016
What were United Nations vehicles doing in Virginia on Friday?
Global Police Force:
NWO World News: