Saturday, August 19, 2017


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

 Meanwhile, on CNN, the denial and willful ignorance continue. My latest in FrontPage:

In Spain Thursday, a man drove a truck into a crowd at Barcelona’s popular Costa Dorada area, killing at least 13 and injuring 100. On CNN, Wolf Blitzer asked, “There will be questions about copycats. Questions, if what happened in Barcelona, was at all, at all, a copycat version of what happened in Charlottesville, Virginia.”
No, Wolf, it was a phenomenon with which you and your CNN colleagues have only a glancing familiarity: Islamic jihad. Of course Wolf Blitzer immediately reached for a connection with Charlottesville, because he most likely doesn’t believe that there are Islamic jihadis at all, just mentally ill lone wolves driven to violence by “Islamophobia.” Jihad doesn’t fit his network’s narrative. And vehicular jihad? Wolf has never heard of such a thing.
Last June, the Islamic State published a poster depicting an SUV driving over a heap of skulls and bearing the legend “Run Over Them Without Mercy.”
And the Islamic State issued this call in September 2014:
So O muwahhid, do not let this battle pass you by wherever you may be. You must strike the soldiers, patrons, and troops of the tawaghit. Strike their police, security, and intelligence members, as well as their treacherous agents. Destroy their beds. Embitter their lives for them and busy them with themselves. If you can kill a disbelieving American or European — especially the spiteful and filthy French — or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be….If you are not able to find an IED or a bullet, then single out the disbelieving American, Frenchman, or any of their allies. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him….
Many Muslims in the West have heeded this call. The man who rented the van used in the Barcelona attack was a Muslim from Morocco named Driss Oukabier, who was arrested, while one of his apparent accomplices was killed in a gun battle with police. This could have been just one part of a much larger jihad plot, as Spanish police now believe that a massive explosion in a house in Alcanar, 120 miles south of Barcelona, was also linked to the Barcelona jihad plotters.
There have been many other vehicular jihad attacks. Just last week in France, a Muslim named Hamou Bachir hit six French soldiers with his car in Levallois-Perret, where the headquarters of the DGSI (General Directorate for Internal Security), the country’s primary counter-terrorism intelligence agency, are located. In June, a Muslim drove his car into a crowd on the London Bridge and then jumped out and started stabbing people. We have seen several other vehicular jihadis get out of the car after they plowed into pedestrians, and start stabbing people. In June 2015, a Muslim in Austria drove his car into a crowd, killing three, and then got out and stabbed passersby. Then in November 2016, a Muslim student at Ohio State University named Abdul Razak Ali Artan drove his car into a crowd, then got out and stabbed several others.
There have been many others in 2016 and this year: in Nice, in Berlin, in Jerusalem, in Paris, and elsewhere. Yet on CNN and elsewhere in the establishment media, no analysts have connected the dots between these jihad attacks, which have an obvious connection with one another in sharing the same motivating ideology and the same goal. But Wolf Blitzer readily sees a wholly imaginary connection between Charlottesville (in which a neo-Nazi was imitating jihadis, not the other way around) and Barcelona, because he wishes to exaggerate the importance and influence of white supremacists, while minimizing the magnitude of the jihad threat.
And so it goes in the daily news of the contemporary West: another jihad massacre, and another reason to turn off CNN.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Yet another battle in the war that only one side admits is being waged.

“Finland incident: Police shoot man ‘who stabbed several people’ in city of Turku,” by Stephen Jones, Mirror, August 18, 2017:
Finland ‘terror attack’: Several people injured after ‘knifeman screaming Allahu Akbar’ goes on rampage in city.
Armed police have opened fire on a knife-wielding attacker ‘screaming Allahu Akbar’ who has gone on a rampage ‘randomly stabbing people’ in Finland.
Police have confirmed “several people have been knifed” in the centre of Turku this afternoon – including ‘a woman and a baby’.
The police are urging people to avoid the centre of town – and a body has reportedly been spotted covered up.
According to information police have opened fire – and witnesses report seeing a pool of blood.
Early reports say one assailant was shot in the leg – and this person was arrested.
The police tweeted at 2.50pm: “Several persons stabbed in central Turku. Police has shot at suspected perpetrator. One person is apprehended.”
Five minutes earlier they tweeted: “People are advised to leave the Centre of Turku.”
According to an eyewitness, the incident happened close to the Market Square.
Among the injured is an elderly mother with a young boy nearby – both of whom were spotted covered in blood….
 Finland: Five Muslim migrants arrested 
after fatal knife rampage


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
As I said, Obama's third term: 
“H.R. McMaster-Endorsed Book Calls Jihad Peaceful, Al-Qaida Terrorism ‘Resistance,’” by Aaron Klein, Breitbart, August 18, 2017:
TEL AVIV — A book on terrorism endorsed and touted by H.R. McMaster, the embattled White House National Security Adviser, calls Hamas an “Islamist political group” while failing to categorize the deadly organization as a terrorist group, and refers to al-Qaida attacks and anti-Israel terrorism as “resistance.”
The work frames jihad as largely peaceful “means to struggle or exert effort,” such as waking up early in the morning to recite prayers. It argues that groups like al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations have hijacked the concept of jihad to wage warfare using such tactics as suicide bombings.
The book, reviewed in full by this reporter, was authored by U.S. military officer Youssef H. Aboul-Enein, and is titled Militant Islamist Ideology: Understanding the Global Threat.
McMaster provided a glowing blurb for the book jacket, referring to Aboul-Enein’s book as “an excellent starting point” for understanding terrorist ideology. McMaster also promoted the book in ARMOR, the journal of the U.S. Army’s Armor Branch, published at Fort Benning, Georgia, where McMaster served as commanding general at the Ft. Benning Maneuver Center of Excellence.
McMaster wrote in his blurb for the book: “Militant Islamist Ideology deserves a wide readership among all those concerned with the problem of transnational terrorism, their ideology, and our efforts to combat those organizations that pose a serious threat to current and future generations of Muslims and non-Muslims alike.”
In the blurb, McMaster revealed his own views on terrorism, claiming that “terrorist organizations use a narrow and irreligious ideology to recruit undereducated and disenfranchised people to their cause.”
The book may offer a primer into critical national security views held by McMaster, who has claimed that Islamic terrorist organizations are “really un-Islamic” and are “really irreligious organizations” who cloak themselves in the “false legitimacy of Islam.”
In numerous public comments on terrorism, McMaster has seemed to minimize the central religious motivations of radical Islamic terrorist groups who are waging a religious war against Western civilization. McMaster’s comments represent views of Islamic terrorism that are diametrically opposed to those espoused by President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly utilized the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism.”
Aboul-Enein is listed as a senior adviser and analyst at the Joint Intelligence Task Force for Combating Terrorism at the Defense Intelligence Agency, a position that he also held under the Obama administration. He is an officer in the Navy Medical Service Corps and Middle East Foreign Officer, and an adjunct military professor and chair of Islamic studies at the National Defense University.
Besides endorsing Militant Islamist Ideology, McMaster also wrote a forward for another Aboul-Enein book, this one titled, Iraq in Turmoil: Historical Perspectives of Dr. Ali al-Wardi, From the Ottoman Empire to King Feisal.
Hamas an ‘Islamist Political Group’
Throughout the McMaster-endorsed Militant Islamist Ideology book, Aboul-Enein struggles to properly categorize Hamas; but at no point does he call Gaza’s murderous Islamist rulers a terrorist organization.
Hamas is a terrorist group responsible for scores of deadly suicide bombings, shootings and rocket attacks targeting Israeli civilians. Hamas’s official charter calls for the obliteration of the Jewish state, and proclaims that there is “no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.” Hamas leaders routinely demand the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews.
Yet Aboul-Enein struggles to properly classify Hamas. At one point, Aboul-Enein differentiates between “militant Islamists” and Hamas, grouping the latter among “Islamist political groups.”
In the book’s introduction, he writes:
Militant Islamists alienate not only the United States but even Islamist political groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. It is time for a more nuanced definition of the threat.
At another point, the author calls Hamas an “Islamist” group. He writes (page 131): “For instance, Zawahiri condemns Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas for participating in the electoral process.”
Despite its clear terrorist activities, Aboul-Enein suggests (page 2) that Hamas does not “fit into a neat category.” He asks an open question about whether Hamas “is an Islamist or Militant Islamist group,” but he does not provide an answer.
He writes (page 3):
There are also Islamists who do not fit into a neat category, such as the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas. On one hand, Hamas provides social services, won 44 percent of the electorate in 2006, and is the government of the Palestinian territories. On the other hand, it has failed to compromise effectively with other Palestinian rejectionist and secular groups to form a governing coalition, and it has failed to provide social services for a wider Palestinian populace. In addition, it has conducted suicide operations directed against Israeli civilians – though it has not widened its campaign beyond targeting Israel. Further, al-Qaida senior leaders have viciously attacked Hamas for participating in electoral politics. The question for Americans is whether Hamas is an Islamist or Militant Islamist group.
Aboul-Enein fails to note that the U.S. government already answered that so-called question, designating Hamas as a foreign terrorist group.
In another section of the book, Aboul-Enein defines (page 193) Hamas as straddling “the Islamist and Militant Islamist divide, using its proficiency in suicide-bomber operations to strike at Israeli targets, yet it is currently in government.” He also writes (page 215) that Hamas “is a Palestinian Sunni Islamist militant organization and political party.”
Al-Qaida, Palestinian ‘Resistance’
In the book, Aboul-Enein refers to the deadly terrorism of al-Qaida in Iraq as “resistance.” Besides its worldwide mayhem, Al-Qaida has been responsible for countless terrorist attacks across Iraq that have targeted civilians, U.S. troops and Iraqi government institutions.
Aboul-Enein relates a struggle between the goals of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) and those of the Islamic Army of Iraq (IAI) in terms of “resistance” locally versus a global fight against the West.
Aboul-Enein writes (page 101):
In post-Saddam Iraq, among the Sunni insurgency there are other stressors that undermine al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI), such as the tensions between the Islamic Army of Iraq (IAI) and al-Qaida in Iraq. The IAI struggles with AQI over the concept of this fight being for Iraq’s Sunnis and not a wider pan-Islamist struggle; the IAI has narrower objectives than AQI. It is a tension between Jihad as muqawama (resistance) and Jihad for a wider pan-Islamist objective.
He refers to support for “resistance” against the U.S. presence in Iraq. He does so when documenting the rise of Muslim Brotherhood political parties and public criticism of an al-Qaida hotel bombing in 2005 in Amman, Jordan.
He writes (page 46):
This has split the Muslim Brotherhood, as there is deep hostility toward the U.S. presence in Iraq, support for muqawama (resistance) and for the Muslim Brotherhood concept of wasatiyah (moderation), and recognition of the need for grassroots representation of the Ahl-al-Sunnah (formal term for Sunni Muslims).
Aboul-Enein also categorizes deadly terrorist raids on Jewish settlements in the 1930s as “resistance,” even though those operations targeted and killed civilians.
He states: (page 138)
No study of Militant Islamist ideologues and the cleavages between Militant Islamist and Islamist groups can be complete without delving into the life, actions, theories, and legacy of Abdullah Azzam. Militant Islamist operatives take the nom de guerre “Abu Azzam” in his honor. A witness to increased Jewish immigration into Palestine in World War II, Azzam was reared on the stories of resistance by the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigade, which led guerrilla raids against the British and then Jewish settlers.
The Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades is currently the namesake of Hamas’s so-called military wing. Aboul-Enein was referring to deadly attacks carried out by the original Brigade, founded around 1930 by Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, a Syrian Muslim cleric who popularized the concept of jihad against Jews during the British civil administration of Palestine.
“Islamist” vs. “Militant Islamist”
The core of Aboul-Enein’s endeavor, and one that may help to elucidate McMaster’s views, is to differentiate between what he terms “Islamist” and “Militant Islamist,” and to show that “militant Islamists” present a distorted, dishonest view of Islam. The thesis might clarify McMaster’s aversion to using the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism.”
In seeking to differentiate between “Islam,” “Islamist,” and “Militant Islamist,” Aboul-Enein comes up with the following basic definitions:
  • Islam is “the religious faith of Muslims, involving (as defined in Merriam-Webster’s) belief in Allah as the sole deity and in Muhammad as his prophet.”
  • He defines Islamist as “a group or individual advocating Islam as a political as well as a religious system. Chief Islamist objectives include implementing sharia (Islamic) law as the basis of all statutory issues and living as did the earliest adherents to Islam. Many Islamists also assert that implementation of sharia law requires the elimination of all non-Islamic influences in social, political, economic, and military spheres of life.”
  • Militant Islamists, Aboul-Enein claims, consist of a “group or individual advocating Islamist ideological goals, principally by violent means. Militant Islamists call for the strictest possible interpretation of both the Qur’an (Muslim book of divine revelation) and the hadith (the Prophet Muhammad’s actions and deeds). This narrow interpretation opposes the beliefs of Muslims and non-Muslims alike; Militant Islamists stand against Western democracies, Middle Eastern institutions of government, and Islamist political parties that participate nonviolently in elections.”
Defining Jihad
Aboul-Enein frames jihad as a largely peaceful “means to struggle or exert effort,” a term that has been hijacked by “militant Islamists” to wage extremist warfare.
Aboul-Enein posits, for example, that jihad “can be as simple as struggling to get up in the early morning to say your dawn prayers or struggling to learn and improve yourself spiritually or intellectually. It also can mean struggling in the path of God, which does not necessarily mean engaging in warfare but might be making time to teach Islam to children or providing financial support for an Islamic project.”
Jihad, in other words, is a struggle to fulfill one’s obligations to Allah, according to the author.
Islamists, he states, define jihad as a “means to expend every effort fighting against the disbelievers.” However, Aboul-Enein attempts to cloak this violent struggle in the shroud of morality.
He writes (page 34): “Islamists delineate who can fight and when; unlike Militant Islamists, they generally set rules and limits for engaging in fighting in the name of God. … It makes Jihad obligatory upon all Muslims only if the enemy has entered Muslim lands and if the imam calls for Jihad.”
Some Islamists, he relates, “prescribe a protocol of warfare in which a noble Muslim warrior should be free of arrogance and conceit,” and espouse “etiquette” such as “warnings not to kill noncombatant women and children.”
Aboul-Enein describes the seemingly legitimate, moderate jihad as different from the jihadist views advocated by “militant Islamists,” who “use women, children, and the mentally infirm as suicide bombers, who reduce Jihad to fighting or supporting the fighting through financial means, and who make Jihad incumbent upon all Muslims, with no distinction between communal and individual responsibility.”
Islam experts, meanwhile, have pointed out that mainstream Islamic scripture advocates a violent jihad to spread Islam worldwide.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, wrote at Foreign Policy magazine that “anyone seeking support for armed jihad in the name of Allah will find ample support in the passages in the Quran and Hadith that relate to Mohammed’s Medina period.”
Ali pointed to Q4:95 which states, “Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home).” Q8:60 instructs Muslims “to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know.” Q9:29 explicitly tells Muslims: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
Writes Ali:
Mainstream Islamic jurisprudence continues to maintain that the so-called “sword verses” (9:5 and 9:29) have “abrogated, canceled, and replaced” those verses in the Quran that call for “tolerance, compassion, and peace.”
There lies the duality within Islam. It’s possible to claim, following Mohammed’s example in Mecca, that Islam is a religion of peace. But it’s also possible to claim, as the Islamic State does, that a revelation was sent to Mohammed commanding Muslims to wage jihad until every human being on the planet accepts Islam or a state of subservience, on the basis of his legacy in Medina.
The key question is not whether Islam is a religion of peace, but rather, whether Muslims follow the Mohammed of Medina, regardless of whether they are Sunni or Shiite.
Writing for the Hoover Institute, Shmuel Bar, who served as a senior research fellow at the Institute for Policy and Strategy at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya in Israel, asserted that “few orthodox Islamic scholars would deny” that beliefs “commonly viewed as typical of radical Islamic ideology” are “deeply rooted in Orthodox Islam.”
McMaster’s Troubling Views
McMaster, meanwhile, has espoused controversial views on the topics discussed in Aboul-Enein’s book.
On Monday, Breitbart News unearthed a 2014 speech on the Middle East in which McMaster claimed that Islamic terrorist organizations are “really un-Islamic” and are “really irreligious organizations” who cloak themselves in the “false legitimacy of Islam.”
McMaster, who serves in a critical national security position, seems to be minimizing the central religious motivations of radical Islamic terrorist groups who are waging a religious war against Western civilization.
He has made such remarks in the past. Delivering the keynote address at last April’s Norwich University ROTC Centennial Symposium, McMaster criticized “modern day barbarians like Daeshand Al-Qaeda who cynically use a perverted interpretation of religion to perpetuate ignorance, incite hatred, and commit the most heinous crimes against innocents.”
In February, CNN cited a source inside a National Security Council meeting quoting McMaster as saying that use of the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” is unhelpful in working with allies to fight terrorism.
In May, McMaster spoke on ABC’s This Week about whether Trump would use the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” in a speech that the president was about to give in Saudi Arabia.
“The president will call it whatever he wants to call it,” McMaster said. “But I think it’s important that, whatever we call it, we recognize that [extremists] are not religious people. And, in fact, these enemies of all civilizations, what they want to do is to cloak their criminal behavior under this false idea of some kind of religious war.”
In the speech, Trump eventually urged Muslim-majority countries to take the lead in “combating radicalization,” and referred to “Islamist extremism and the Islamist terror groups it inspires.”
Shia and Sunni Islamic terrorist groups such as al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and the Islamic State each openly espouse Islamic motivations, repeatedly cite the Quran, and claim they are fighting a religious war. Some of the Sunni groups are violent offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood, which seeks to create a global Islamic caliphate.
Besides his drive to define terrorist groups as “irreligious,” Breitbart News further unearthed a speech following Israel’s defensive 2014 war against the Hamas terrorist group in which McMaster sidestepped a question about whether the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) conducted itself in an ethical manner, instead providing what McMaster admitted was a “non-answer.”…

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The Left is mounting an all-out assault against the freedom of speech, and using Charlottesville to try to crush all dissent. I received this email today. I know also that Lauren Kirchner has sent it to other counter-jihad sites as well.

I am a reporter at ProPublica, a nonprofit investigative newsroom in New York. I am contacting you to let you know that we are including your website in a list of sites that have been designated as hate or extremist by the American Defamation League or the Southern Poverty Law Center. We have identified all the tech platforms that are supporting websites on the ADL and SPLC lists.
We would like to ask you a few questions:
1) Do you disagree with the designation of your website as hate or extremist? Why?
2) We identified several tech companies on your website: PayPal, Amazon, Newsmax, and Revcontent. Can you confirm that you receive funds from your relationship with those tech companies? How would the loss of those funds affect your operations, and how would you be able to replace them?
3) Have you been shut down by other tech companies for being an alleged hate or extremist web site? Which companies?
4) Many people opposed to sites like yours are currently pressuring tech companies to cease their relationships with them – what is your view of this campaign? Why?
Our deadline is 5pm EST today.
Thank you,
Lauren Kirchner
Here are the answers I sent to Lauren Kirchner:
1) Do you disagree with the designation of your website as hate or extremist? Why?
Yes, certainly I do. For years, Leftists and Muslim groups with numerous ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood have smeared as “hate” all attempts to speak honestly about the motivating ideology behind jihad terrorism. In reality, it is not hateful, racist or extremist to oppose jihad terror, and the claim that it is [is] not only libelous but insidious: the intent has clearly been to intimidate people into thinking it wrong to oppose jihad terror, and it has worked, as illustrated by the neighbors of the San Bernardino jihad murderers, who saw suspicious activity at their home but didn’t report them for fear of being “racist.”
2) We identified several tech companies on your website: PayPal, Amazon, Newsmax, and Revcontent. Can you confirm that you receive funds from your relationship with those tech companies? How would the loss of those funds affect your operations, and how would you be able to replace them?
The intent of your questions, and no doubt of your forthcoming article, will be to try to compel these sites to cut off any connection with us based on our opposition to jihad terror. Are you comfortable with what you’re enabling? Not only are you inhibiting honest analysis of the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, but you’re aiding the attempt to deny people a platform based on their political views. This could come back to bite you if your own views ever fall out of favor. Have you ever lived in a totalitarian state, where the powerful determine the parameters of the public discourse and cut off all voice from the powerless? Do you really want to live in one now? You might find, once you get there, that it isn’t as wonderful as you thought it would be.
3) Have you been shut down by other tech companies for being an alleged hate or extremist web site? Which companies?
No. This is a new thing. First came the ridiculous claim that opposing jihad terror was “hate,” and now comes the other shoe dropping: the attempt to cut out the ground from under the feet of those who “hate.” You can only hope that you aren’t similarly defamed one day; perhaps if that does happen, you will realize (too late) why the freedom of speech is an indispensable element of a free society.
4) Many people opposed to sites like yours are currently pressuring tech companies to cease their relationships with them – what is your view of this campaign? Why?
Nazis will be Nazis. Fascists will be fascists. Today they call themselves “Antifa” and the like, but they’re acting just like Hitler’s Brownshirts did, when they shouted down and assaulted anti-Nazi speakers. Now the violent thugs work in a more genteel fashion: they just pull the Internet plug on those they hate. You, Lauren Kirchner, are aiding and abetting a quintessentially fascist enterprise. Authoritarianism in service of any cause leads to a slave society despite the best intentions of those who helped usher it in.
 BOYCOTT PAYPAL: PayPal bows to Left-fascist pressure, endorses jihad, drops Jihad Watch


 Published on Aug 17, 2017
Missouri State Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal is taking heat after commenting "I hope Trump is assassinated!" on her personal Facebook page. The comments come just after President Trump's press conference on the violence in Virginia.
 SICK! Missouri Senator: ‘I Hope Trump Is Assassinated'; Refuses to Resign!
 Dems Back State Senator Wishing Trump Assassination

Authoritarian left defends assassination comment



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Leftists are signing a petition in support of a Missouri state senator who hoped President Trump will be assassinated.
The petition website appeared almost overnight after Maria Chappelle-Nadal made international headlines for her now-deleted Facebook post in which she said “I hope Trump is assassinated!”

“We, as constituents and community members and people who feel the same frustration with our current political landscape stand with Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal,” the site states. “We know that there is a huge difference between saying that someone hopes Donald Trump is assassinated and someone calling for his assassination.”
As if a state senator hoping for the murder or a duty-elected president is even defensible, but that just comes to show you how delusional the more authoritarian elements of the left have become.

Could you imagine their outrage if a state senator had said the same thing about Obama?  Remember how rabid they were when a rodeo clown dressed up as the former president back in 2013.
It’s also pretty much a given that anyone who signs the petition is going on a Secret Service watch list.
Chappelle-Nadal is facing massive backlash for her post, with many of her constituents calling for her resignation.
In response, she said she wished she had “reframed” her statement.
“Out of anger and frustration, I said something that could have been reframed,” Chappelle-Nadal stated. “And I refuse to shy away from the hypocrisy and chaos our country is enduring under Trump.”
But advocating violence as the solution adds to the chaos.
“All sides need to agree that there is no room for suggestions of political violence in America — and the Missouri Democratic Party will absolutely not tolerate calls for the assassination of the President,” said Stephen Webber, the party’s chairman.
Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens demands removal of state senator over Trump assassination remark 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens demands removal of state senator over Trump assassination remark (ABC News)

Missouri Governor Eric Greitens on Friday demanded the removal of a state senator who called for President Trump's assassination in a now-deleted Facebook post. Those remarks prompted an investigation by the U.S. Secret Service.
Sen. Maria Chapelle-Nadal, a Democrat, wrote on her personal Facebook page Thursday, "I hope Trump is assassinated!" She later deleted the post.
Chapelle-Nadal has balked at calls for her resignation.
"I am not resigning," she tweeted Thursday. "When POC [people of color] are respected by this WH & they are willing to do real work, I'll sit down with them. People are traumatized!"
So Gov. Greitens and Lt. Gov. Mike Parson, both Republicans, on Friday called for Chapelle-Nadal's colleagues to oust her.
"If she will not resign, the Senate can vote to remove her. I believe they should," Greitens tweeted.
The Republican governor previously tweeted, "Senator Chappelle-Nadal said she hopes the President is killed. Republicans and Democrats have called on her to resign ... Her response: 'Hell no.' Last night, in an interview, she refused to apologize -— twice."
Chappelle-Nadal told The Associated Press on Friday that she met on Thursday with the U.S. Secret Service as part of its investigation into her remarks.
"I let them know that I had no intentions of hurting anyone or trying to get other people to hurt anyone at all," she said.
And in an interview with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, she said, "I didn’t mean what I put up. Absolutely not. It was in response to the concerns that I am hearing from residents of St. Louis.”


FILE - In this Sept. 10, 2014, file photo, Missouri state Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal speaks on the Senate floor in Jefferson City, Mo. (The Associated Press)

Chappelle-Nadal made the remark in response to a post that suggested Vice President Mike Pence would try to have Trump removed from office. Chappelle-Nadal said she made comment out of frustration with the Trump's response to last weekend's white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Parson said he will ask senators to remove Chappelle-Nadal from office if she does not resign by the time lawmakers convene Sept. 13 to consider veto overrides. Parson is the presiding officer of the Senate, though he can only vote to break ties and cannot sponsor legislation or make motions for votes.
"She is no longer fit to serve our state," Parson said at a Capitol press conference Friday.

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Parents who question vaccines are crazy? Really? Parents who claim to discover vaccine-dangers are crazy? Really?
Official history is a curious thing. Whole sections of fact disappear from the record.
When I was researching my first book, AIDS INC., in 1987-88, I explored various forms of immune-system suppression, in order to show that HIV was not the real story.

I looked into vaccines, for example. Here is an excerpt from AIDS INC. Keep in mind that my research, at the time, ended in 1988. This excerpt reports on vaccines disasters and statements about vaccines made by several authors.
It is forgotten history:
“… Based on the only U.S. findings on adverse DPT [diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus vaccine] reactions, an FDA-financed study at the University of California, Los Angeles, one out of every 350 children will have a convulsion; one in 180 children will experience high-pitched screaming [can indicate brain damage]; and one in 66 will have a fever of 105 degrees or more.” (Jennifer Hyman, Democrat and Chronicle, Rochester, New York, special supplement on DPT, dated April, 1987.)
“A study undertaken in 1979 at the University of California, Los Angeles, under the sponsorship of the Food and Drug Administration, and which has been confirmed by other studies, indicates that in the U.S.A. approximately 1,000 infants die annually as a direct result of DPT vaccinations, and these are classified as SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) deaths. These represent about 10 to 15% of the total number of SIDS deaths occurring annually in the U.S.A. (between 8,000 and 10,000 depending on which statistics are used).” (Leon Chaitow, Vaccination and Immunization, CW Daniel Company Limited, Saffron Walden, Essex, England, 1987.)
“Assistant Secretary of Health Edward Brandt, Jr., MD, testifying before the U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, rounded… figures off to 9,000 cases of convulsions, 9,000 cases of collapse, and 17,000 cases of high-pitched screaming for a total of 35,000 acute neurological reactions occurring within forty-eight hours of a DPT shot among America’s children every year.” (DPT: A Shot in the Dark, by Harris L. Coulter and Barbara Loe Fischer, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.)
“… Barker and Pichichero, in a prospective study of 1232 children in Denver, Colorado, found after DTP that only 7% of those vaccinated were free from untoward reactions, which included pyrexia [fever] (53%), acute behavioral changes (82%), prolonged screaming (13%), and listlessness, anorexia and vomiting. 71% of those receiving second injections of DTP experienced two or more of the reactions monitored.” (Lancet, May 28, 1983, p. 1217)
“… the swine-flu vaccination program was one of its (CDC) greatest blunders…It all began in 1976 when CDC scientists saw that a virus involved in a flu attack outbreak at Fort Dix, N.J., was similar to the swine-flu virus that killed 500,000 Americans in 1918. Health officials immediately launched a 100-million dollar program to immunize every American. But the expected epidemic never materialized, and the vaccine led to partial paralysis in 532 people. There were 32 deaths.” (U.S. News and World Report, Joseph Carey, October 14, 1985, p. 70, “How Medical Sleuths Track Killer Diseases.”)
“Smallpox, like typhus, has been dying out (in England) since 1780. Vaccination in this country has largely fallen into disuse since people began to realize how its value was discredited by the great smallpox epidemic of 1871-2 (which occurred after extensive vaccination).” (W. Scott Webb, A Century of Vaccination, Swan Sonnenschein, 1898.)
“In this incident (Kyoto, Japan, 1948) – the most serious of its kind – a toxic batch of alum-precipitated toxoid (APT) was responsible for illness in over 600 infants and for no fewer than 68 deaths. On 20 and 22 October, 1948, a large number of babies and children in the city of Kyoto received their first injection of APT. On the 4th and 5th of November, 15,561 babies and children aged some months to 13 years received their second dose. One to two days later, 606 of those who had been injected fell ill. Of these, 9 died of acute diphtheritic paralysis in seven to fourteen days, and 59 of late paralysis mainly in four to seven weeks.” (Sir Graham Wilson, Hazards of Immunization, Athone Press, University of London, 1967.) For part two click below.
“Accidents may, however, follow the use of this so-called killed (rabies) vaccine owing to inadequate processing. A very serious occurrence of this sort occurred at Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil, in 1960. No fewer than 18 out of 66 persons vaccinated with Fermi’s carbolized (rabies ) vaccine suffered from encephalomyelitis and every one of the eighteen died.” (Sir Graham Wilson, Hazards of Immunization.)
“At a press conference in Washington on 24 July, 1942, the Secretary of War reported that 28,585 cases of jaundice had been observed in the (American) Army between 1 January and 4 July after yellow fever vaccination, and of these 62 proved fatal.” (Wilson, Hazards of Immunization.)
“Between 10 December 1929 and 30 April 1930, 251 of 412 infants born in Lubeck received three doses of BCG vaccine by the mouth during the first ten days of life. Of these 251, 72 died of tuberculosis, most of them in two to five months and all but one before the end of the first year. In addition, 135 suffered from clinical tuberculosis but eventually recovered; and 44 became tuberculin-positive but remained well. None of the 161 unvaccinated infants born at the time was affected in this way and none of these died of tuberculosis within the following three years.” (Hazards of Immunization, Wilson.)
“So far it is hardly possible to gain insight into the extent of the immunization catastrophe of 1955 in the United States. It may be considered certain that the officially ascertained 200 cases (of polio) which were caused directly or indirectly by the (polio) vaccination constitute minimum figures… It can hardly be estimated how many of the 1359 (polio) cases among vaccinated persons must be regarded as failures of the vaccine and how many of them were infected by the vaccine. A careful study of the epidemiologic course of polio in the United States yields indications of grave significance. In numerous states of the U.S.A., typical early epidemics developed with the immunizations in the spring of 1955… The vaccination incidents of the year 1955 cannot be exclusively traced back to the failure of one manufacturing firm.” [Dr. Herbert Ratner, Child and Family, 1980, vol. 19, no. 4, “Story of the Salk Vaccine (Part 2).”]
“Suffice it to say that most of the large (polio) epidemics that have occurred in this country since the introduction of the Salk vaccine have followed the wide-scale use of the vaccine and have been characterized by an uncommon early seasonal onset. To name a few, there is the Massachusetts epidemic of 1955; the Chicago epidemic of 1956; and the Des Moines epidemic of 1959.” (Dr. Herbert Ratner, Child and Family, 1980 vol. 19, no. 4.)
“By the (U.S.) government’s own admission, there has been a 41% failure rate in persons who were previously vaccinated against the (measles) virus.” (Dr. Anthony Morris, John Chriss, BG Young, “Occurrence of Measles in Previously Vaccinated Individuals,” 1979; presented at a meeting of the American Society for Microbiology at Fort Detrick, Maryland, April 27, 1979.)
“Prior to the time doctors began giving rubella (measles) vaccinations, an estimated 85% of adults were naturally immune to the disease (for life). Because of immunization, the vast majority of women never acquire natural immunity (or lifetime protection).” (Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, Let’s Live, December 1983, as quoted by Carolyn Reuben in the LA WEEKLY, June 28, 1985.)
“Administration of KMV (killed measles vaccine) apparently set in motion an aberrant immunologic response that not only failed to protect children against natural measles, but resulted in heightened susceptibility.” JAMA Aug. 22, 1980, vol. 244, p. 804, Vincent Fulginiti and Ray Helfer. The authors indicate that such falsely protected children can come down with “an often severe, atypical form of measles. Atypical measles is characterized by fever, headache… and a diverse rash (which)… may consist of a mixture of macules, papules, vesicles, and pustules… ”
Official reports on vaccine reactions are often at odds with unofficial estimates because of the method of analysis used. If vaccine-reaction is defined as a small set of possible effects experienced within 72 hours of an inoculation, then figures will be smaller. But doctors like G.T. Stewart, of the University of Glasgow, have found through meticulous investigation, including visits to hospitals and interviews with parents of children vaccinated, that reactions as severe as brain-damage (e.g., from the DPT vaccine) can be overlooked, go unreported and can be mistakenly assumed to have come from other causes.
Note: The list of examples cited above is by no means exhaustive.
This article first appeared at


After Charlottesville, Globalist Rice Smears Patriots as Racists 



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
In what was condemned as a vile instance of dishonesty, former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice employed what is known as a “sandwich smear,” equating patriotic constitutionalists of all races and creeds with National Socialists (Nazis) and the Ku Klux Klan. The globalist member of the establishment swamp known as the Council on Foreign Relations, who according to the New York Times rejects the “America First” agenda articulated by President Trump and supported by voters, knows what she did was dishonest, critics said. Black and Jewish constitutionalists and patriots offered especially strong condemnations of the bigoted remarks by the Bush-era official.
Writing on social media after the recent violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, the former secretary of state specifically attacked the John Birch Society, which played absolutely no role in the protests in Virginia and has always strongly opposed racism. Indeed, not one single media report has mentioned the Society in connection with the events in Charlottesville, because there was no link whatsoever. By contrast, the JBS has been publishing articles showing that the violence in Virginia advances the agendas of leftists and racists. And the JBS position has always been clear: While Council on Foreign Relations member William F. Buckley argued for white supremacy in his magazine National Review in the late 1950s, the young John Birch Society was busy expelling racists and anti-Semites from the movement and publishing the writings of prominent black Birchers such as George Schuyler.

Ironically, in light of Rice's comments, the JBS has been a powerful force against both the KKK and National Socialism (Nazism). Working with the FBI, members of the Society have actually played key roles in bringing down some of the Klan's most violent murderers. Reverend Delmar Dennis was a JBS member who, with permission from JBS headquarters, and at great personal risk to himself, infiltrated the most violent Klan in U.S. history, the White Knights of the KKK of Mississippi. He played a crucial role in bringing down some of its murderous members. And considering the Society's fierce opposition to socialism, communism, and fascism — not to mention its many Jewish members and leaders over the years, including some who survived the Holocaust — it goes without saying that the JBS has always been a major foe to Nazis and their agenda.
Still, Rice, for reasons that were not made clear in her post, felt the need to smear the JBS by listing it in-between racist and collectivist organizations and ideologies that the JBS has always vehemently opposed. “Those of us who lived the horrors of Jim Crow and segregation know how much it hurts to be hated for the color of your skin. The KKK, the John Birch Society, and Nazis belong to that awful past,” Rice said, omitting the fact that unlike many conservative organizations, the Birch Society had many prominent black Americans as members even during that era, and still does today. “And they should stay buried there. They have no place in our country's politics or in our society. We must condemn them and their actions unequivocally.”
Rice, who played a key role in engineering the illegal wars that led to the ongoing extermination of Christians in the Middle East, claimed she would be praying for the family of Heather Heyer, all who were injured, and the city of Charlottesville. “And I pray for our country and the healing that we do badly need,” she said.
Of course, her sandwich smear quoted above raises serious concerns about her “prayers.” The God of the Bible commands people not to bear false witness, one of the Ten Commandments. And yet, Rice, almost certainly deliberately, critics said, bore false witness against countless good Americans of all colors and creeds by equating them with the KKK and Nazis. In the Bible, Jesus Christ — the God that most Americans pray to — even says that the devil himself is the father of lies, and that liars are his children.
Social media users promptly flooded Rice's Facebook page with comments exposing the dishonesty. Even some of her self-described supporters spoke out, noting that the Birch Society, obviously, did not belong on the list. After being made aware of the comments, members and supporters of the Society — especially black, Jewish, and other minorities — expressed outrage, too.
“As a Christian, Patriot, Clergy, who happens to be Black by God's Design, I am fully convinced that former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, knows that her lying statement accusing the John Birch Society of racism is wrong and very destructive!” said Reverend Steven Louis Craft, echoing concerns expressed by numerous other members of the Society. “If you research her background, you will discover she is a globalist member of the Council on Foreign Relations and therefore part of a world-wide agenda to destroy any ideas of Making America Great Again! This is nothing more than a satanic plot to destroy President Donald Trump by accusing him as well as the John Birch Society for the wickedness on both sides of the madness that happened in Charlottesville, Virginia!”
Bob Unger, a New York attorney who happens to be Jewish, also blasted the remarks. “It seems to me that she has an agenda, since the John Birch Society is not in any way involved in the altercations that took place in Charlottesville,” Unger told The New American. “Obviously she has an agenda to discredit those who are exposing globalists like herself. Otherwise, how would the John Birch Society even come to mind here? If she had just said KKK and Nazis, OK, that was all on video. But certainly I, as a Bircher, would not stand next to Nazis and KKK members.”
“I don't know who everyone was in that crowd,” Unger continued. “I don't know whether there were innocent, well-meaning people there, either. If I were a reporter, I would investigate. I just don't know. But certainly to throw a John Birch Society tag on this is actually a positive thing, because why try to discredit preemptively something that is irrelevant to the event other than to try to smear them. It's funny, globalists call people like me McCarthyites. But isn't that guilt by lack of association? If I'm a person who believes Robert E Lee has a place in U.S. history, and a Nazi says that, does that make me a Nazi? A Nazi might also say today is Friday. If I say today is Friday, am I a Nazi? This is the process of thinking, or non-thinking, that we have in today's society, which is why we're currently like the Titanic on the iceberg.”
Art Thompson, the CEO of the John Birch Society, spoke out, too. “The message sent out by Condoleezza Rice is a perfect example of what is called a sandwich smear,” he told The New American in a statement. “This technique was widely used by the liberal and Leftist media during the smear campaign against The John Birch Society in the 1960s. It is designed to make the reader think that the good, sandwiched between two unsavory groups, is somehow connected to them when the truth is much different.”
Thompson also pointed out that Rice, like many establishment operatives, rightfully criticized National Socialists and the KKK, but not the violent leftists marauding across the United States terrorizing innocent people. “Note that she made no mention of the communists or those promoting violence in the streets against our local police or shutting down free speech by violent action on our campuses,” Thompson observed, echoing concerns expressed by countless Americans of all races and creeds, including the president of the United States, shocked by the dishonest media coverage.
JBS Always Opposed Racism and anti-Semitism
Since the JBS was founded, and long before opposition to racism and anti-Semitism was as mainstream as it is today, membership in the Society has been closed to racists and anti-Semites. Robert Welch, the founder of the Society, made that clear at the beginning, making Rice's statement attempting to link JBS to anti-Semites and racists downright ridiculous to anyone who knows the facts. Indeed, one of the founding members of the original JBS National Council was Alfred Kohlberg, a prominent Jewish businessman. Numerous other Jews have also served and continue to serve proudly as members and in the leadership of the John Birch Society.
This writer actually co-wrote a book with a prominent Jewish Bircher, Dr. Sam Blumenfeld, who was involved with the Society for many decades and actually worked for it. So passionate was Dr. Blumenfeld about the work of the JBS that, together with other Jewish Birchers such as Alan Stang and Holocaust survivor Georgia Gabor, he helped create the Jewish Society of Americanists in 1966. In a statement of principles, the founders said the society’s aim was “to demonstrate to our fellow Americans and coreligionist that the Americanist principles, beliefs and aims of the John Birch Society are based on the very precepts of Judaism.” They estimated that about 1,000 of the approximately 100,000 JBS members at that time were Jewish.
Another prominent Jew who served in the John Birch Society's leadership was David Eisenberg. In the early 1960s, responding to smears put out by the liars of the day, Eisenberg set out on a crusade to expose the Society based on the lies he had heard in some media outlets. Upon learning the truth, however, he quickly joined the JBS in 1964 and forcefully exposed those who leveled false charges of anti-Semitism at the Society. He was honored to be selected to serve on the National Council in 1995, where he served faithfully for two decades before passing away in 2015.
In response to smears against the Society by establishment operatives, The New American reached out to Andy Dlinn, one of the Society's Jewish leaders who is active in his local synagogue and very prominent in his state and community. Dlinn, who went from chapter leader to a member of the JBS National Council, told The New American that when somebody was caught telling racist and anti-Semitic jokes at a meeting, he called headquarters and that person's membership was immediately terminated. “The JBS follows through on its pledge and will not let this kind of filth neutralize the critical and essential work of the Society,” Dlinn said. “Watch what an organization actually says and does, not what others, without basis tell you about it.”
Even official investigations going back to the 1960s have exposed the establishment's lies about the Society. In a published report that is available to anyone, a California Senate Fact-Finding Committee came to the obvious conclusion after its investigation that not only was the Society not racist or anti-Semitic, it specifically opposed racism and anti-Semitism. “Among other unjustified criticisms against the society is the charge that it is anti-Semitic,” the report found. “Our investigation leads us to the opposite conclusion. The organization is open to people of all religions, all races, all political persuasions except those deemed subversive.”
In fact, Jews quoted in the official report said they felt more welcome in the John Birch Society than in American society at large. “There are many Jews on the Birch committees, many in the society; some members have been asked to resign because they were found to be disruptive with their anti-Semitic attitude,” the report found, adding that Welch and various JBS coordinators were working with prominent Jewish groups to “squelch anti-Semitism.”
The report quotes a Jewish member of the society in Southern California, Jerome E. Linz, who explained: “As a member of the John Birch Society and also a member of the American Jewish League Against Communism, I vehemently deny the allegations of persons or groups claiming that the John Birch Society is a fascist, or any other un-American, collectivist organization. It has been my experience, as a member of a so-called minority group, that I have felt in the society a very great sense of mutual co-operation and respect — a conviction of belonging far above the actual circumstance to be found in daily life outside the society.”
The report goes on to point out that “Welch is unquestionably not anti-Semitic, and wishes his organization to be open to people of all faiths.” The investigators also concluded, as Rice almost certainly knows, that Welch “has already acted to oust anti-Semites from the movement.” “At any rate, our investigations have disclosed no evidence of anti-Semitism on the part of anyone connected with the John Birch Society in California, and much evidence to the effect that it opposes racism in all forms,” the report said.
Prominent black Americans such as nationally renowned conservative radio host Jesse Lee Peterson, founder and president of the pro-family group BOND (the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny), have been involved with JBS for decades. “I have been a member of JBS for 20-years. I have been a speaker on their lecture tour discussing big government’s war on the black family. I know the head of JBS, and I have spent time with some of their members," Peterson told The New American. "They are good and decent people. The JBS is made up of patriots who love America. They want to make America great again. Falsely accusing them of ‘racism’ and associating them with neo-Nazis and the violence that occurred in Charlottesville, VA is unfair and absolutely wrong.”
Still today, the Birch Society welcomes members and leaders from all races and creeds. In an interview with The New American, JBS chapter leader, radio co-host and U.S. military veteran Ken Wood blasted Rice's comments as “absolutely ridiculous.” “When did research become racism?” wondered Wood, who happens to be black. In an interview earlier this year, Wood discussed his “awesome” experience with belonging to the Birch Society and serving as a volunteer leader in Florida. Among other developments, he has found that whenever the Society is smeared, after he researches the charge, it turns out the JBS was correct and telling the truth, and the accuser was being dishonest.
Speaking of Rice, Wood called her “another neocon career-minded opportunist who worked for the Bushes, a family that bankrolled Hitler,” a reference to Bush patriarch Prescott Bush's well-documented legal troubles for his role in Union Bank's financing of the mass-murdering Nazi regime. “Now through her virtue signaling, she is posturing for a promotion within her beloved CFR,” he added. “If these globalists and war criminals would just ride off into the sunset with their ill-gotten gains, it would still be wrong, yet I could live with it. However, like zombies that don't know they're dead, they just won't go away, so now it's time to prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.”

Attack on True Conservatives
Despite the overwhelming evidence that the Society opposes and always has opposed racism and collectivism, even when racism was mainstream and official policy in the United States, Rice is hardly the only establishment operative to employ the sandwich smear against the Birch Society. Numerous other dishonest pseudo-conservatives, neocons, warmongers, globalists, establishment shills, and others have employed similar tactics, stretching from the 1960s all the way through today. It shows that the dishonest effort is coordinated — and the reason is not hard to understand.
Among the recent offenders is pseudo-conservative Washington Post columnist and globalist warmonger Jennifer Rubin. First, she falsely referred to the Society as a “white nationalist” group. After the Post was alerted about the error, the false claim suddenly disappeared. Not long after that, though, Rubin used precisely the same “sandwich smear” tactic employed by Rice, evidencing a premeditated and dishonest effort to mislead the Post's readers that in any legitimate news organization would result in prompt termination of employment. In a column attacking White House strategist Steve Bannon and former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopolous, Rubin said President Trump should disown the "alt-right," which he should have seen as the "modern incarnation of the KKK, the John Birch Society and run-of-the-mill racists."
Before that, another columnist for the “fake news” establishment did the exact same thing. “In pre-Internet days, these people found each other in marginal groups that occasionally reared into prominence: the Klan, the John Birch Society, the American Nazi Party,” wrote Chicago Sun-Times propagandist Neil Steinberg, who first attracted national attention after a scheme to promote gun control blew up in his face — as a convicted drunk wife beater, he was unable to purchase a gun and pass a background check as he planned for publicity purposes, making him an instant celebrity and the subject of nationwide ridicule. He was also widely condemned for what critics blasted as a “racist” tirade against a black woman running as Chicago mayor.
There are numerous additional examples to prove the point. The sandwich smear carefully allows the writers to avoid legal accountability for libel, because they never technically made a false statement about the Birch Society. But among ignorant readers who do not know the truth, it creates, often subconsciously, a negative association in the readers' minds. Obviously, the fact that so many establishment operatives have deployed the sandwich smear against the John Birch Society — and not, say, CFR member William Buckley, who openly advocated white supremacy in his magazine while opposing civil rights legislation  — is not a coincidence.
The real reason for this well-orchestrated pattern of dishonesty against patriotic Americans is that The John Birch Society represents the most effective opposition in the world to the globalist agenda of the Council on Foreign Relations. That agenda is to subvert the U.S. Constitution and build what Rice's bosses have often referred to publicly as the “New World Order.” The far-left Southern Poverty Law Center, which often maligns mainstream Christian and conservative organizations as “hate groups” for opposing homosexual marriage, has not gone so far as to explicitly lie about the JBS by falsely accusing it of racism or hate. Obviously, that would be absurd. But it does identify the Society as the “chief” organization of the “Patriot” movement.
Indeed, despite decades of dishonest attacks against the JBS by establishment operatives, among both pseudo-conservatives and leftists, the JBS is increasingly being recognized on all sides as one of the leading influences behind modern conservatism. “Far from being drummed out of conservatism, it has become the dominant strain,” wrote Jeet Heer, senior editor at The New Republic, arguing that the rise of Donald Trump was essentially the culmination of 60 years of JBS educational efforts. “Far from belonging merely to the lunatic fringe, the Birchers were important precursors to what is now the governing ideology of the Republican Party: Trumpism... Bircherism is now, with Trump, flourishing in an entirely new way.”
Writing in the far-left establishment organ Salon, writer Daniel Denvir also claimed Trump was proof of a JBS takeover of conservatism and the GOP. “These sorts of conspiracies are not limited to immigration: the far right that has taken over the Republican Party incorporates a whole range of extreme theories rooted in the Cold War paranoia of the John Birch Society ... and the rantings of Alex Jones and his Infowars empire,” he wrote. More recently, Politico, Newsmax, and many other influential media outlets have highlighted the surging influence of the Society, bursting the false myths propagated by establishment insiders.
In the far-left establishment behemoth Huffington Post, self-styled “historian” Robert McElvaine also claimed Trump was proof that the JBS was winning. “The Trump candidacy is the culmination of the long campaign begun by McCarthyism and the John Birch Society in the 1950s and aimed at discrediting virtually every institution in the United States,” he wrote. In 2011, meanwhile, journalist Andrew Reinbach, also writing in the Huffington Post, made a similar argument. “Most Americans don’t realize that the right wing’s main ideas have been pushed for 50 years by the John Birch Society (JBS), a group Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley Jr. once thought too extreme, but which has since become the intellectual seed bank of the right,” he said, without noting that Goldwater famously said “extremism in defense of freedom is no vice.”
Indeed, even Rice's cohorts at the CFR have complained about The John Birch Society's effectiveness in stopping their globalist agenda in its tracks — including while Rice was a senior foreign policy official in the Bush administration. The late Robert Pastor, for example, who led the CFR's "North America" schemes to subvert U.S. sovereignty along the lines of the plot used to destroy the independence of European nations, identified the JBS as one of the lead forces in foiling the globalist agenda on the North American continent.
“The John Birch Society" is among the leading groups that “have been the most vocal, active and intense on North American issues, and they were effective in inhibiting the Bush administration and deterring the Obama administration from any grand initiatives,” he wrote in his 2011 book The North American Idea: A vision of a Continental Future. Rice, of course, was at the center of Bush efforts to push this agenda, so it is no wonder that she hates the Birch Society enough to dishonestly smear it at the risk of losing even more credibility.
The JBS Is on the March; the Establishment Is Lashing Out
The true agenda of people like Rice and her cohorts at the Council on Foreign Relations is clear. Prominent patriotic Americans, including CFR members, have been sounding the alarm about the dangerous organization for generations. The late U.S. Admiral Chester Ward, for example, who served as the judge advocate of the U.S. Navy, was a CFR member for 16 years before resigning in disgust. “In the entire CFR lexicon, there is no term of revulsion carrying a meaning so deep as America First,” said Admiral Ward, whose comments on the CFR shed light on why the group would be entirely hostile to any movement or individual who believes in America.
But the reality is even worse than just hating America First policies and advocates. “The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence, and submergence into an all-powerful one-world government,” the admiral warned, adding that “this lust to surrender the sovereignty and independence of the United States is pervasive throughout most of the membership.” In other words, not everyone in the CFR is a fanatical globalist determined to sell out America's sovereignty, but most are. And the fruits of Rice's term in office make clear that she is among them.
That sinister agenda becomes clear even from reading the CFR's own mouthpiece, known as Foreign Affairs. In April 1974, for example, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Richard Gardner explained how the agenda for world government would be pursued. “In short, the house of world order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down,” he wrote. “An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old fashioned assault.” The magazine also regularly promotes regional government, war, and attacks on national sovereignty.
The establishment problem transcends parties. Globalist former Vice President Dick Cheney, the neocon warmonger who served with Rice, boasted of his dishonesty in a speech at the CFR, when he explained that he never informed voters in Wyoming about his membership and leadership role in the establishment organization. Obama's Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, who called former KKK leader Robert Byrd her “mentor,” noted on video that the CFR told her what she should be doing and how she should be thinking. Obviously, Americans were not pleased.
With the American people rejecting the establishment's lackeys and its agenda — not to mention its fake news — globalist operatives are scrambling to derail the movement to preserve the U.S. Constitution and American independence. And with Rice's latest book promoting “democracy” and globalism a giant flop — it has fewer reviews on Amazon than this writer's book on education with a longtime Jewish Bircher — it seems Rice is desperate to remain relevant. Whether she worked with others to concoct her latest smear is not clear. But ironically, by attacking JBS, she has given the Society yet more exposure, and another opportunity to spread the truth.
It is very telling that the enemies of the John Birch Society — really enemies of truth, the Constitution, and the American way — have to resort to lies and deception to demonize the Society and its members. It is also very encouraging to know that the only attacks that can be leveled at the Society to smear it are easily discredited lies. That means the haters of JBS, its members, and what it stands for can find no truthful accusation to level that might turn mainstream Americans against JBS. By contrast, the JBS merely tells the truth about the establishment and its agenda, and allows the chips to fall where they may. The entire agenda of JBS can be summarized as: "To bring about less government, more responsibility, and — with God's help — a better world by providing leadership, education, and organized volunteer action in accordance with moral and Constitutional principles."
These latest developments should serve as encouraging news to patriotic Americans who love America, the Constitution, and the Judeo-Christian foundation of Western civilization; the establishment realizes that the truth, all on its own, will be their downfall. There is never more flak than when one is over the target. As such, while the establishment destroys the credibility of its minions by spreading lies to shore up their fringe and unpopular globalist positions, Americans should speak the truth ever more boldly. In the end, the truth will stand on its own, and those who oppose it and hate it will ultimately be known for what they are.

Related articles:
Charlottesville Violence Advances Agendas of Leftists and Racists
Trump Calls Out Media for Dishonest Reporting of Charlottesville Events
Leftist SPLC Bemoans Growing Influence of The John Birch Society
Rice Testifies in Fed Case Against CIA Whistleblower Jeffrey Sterling
Condi Rice in Tampa: No Bush, No Cheney, No "Mushroom Cloud"
Trump vs. the Establishment
Is “Trumpism” Really “Bircherism”?
Council On Foreign Relations Exposed
Christian Massacres: A Result of U.S. Foreign Policy
WikiLeaks Confirms North American Integration Scheme
 Faith Goldy: Charlottesville, In My Own Words