Al Qaeda’s Base at MIT and Al Qaeda’s Influence Operations With Former US Presidents


The truth continues to come forward showing the depth of influence Islam, and groups like Al Qaeda, have had on American policy and direction at least as far back as when President Clinton was in office. Americans continue to be lied to, misled, deceived, and unwilling or unable to recognize the nation has been at war for decades. People, we need to turn things around now.

The examples of Islamic influence in America covered in these two short presentations is sickening. PLEASE review and get others to as well.

Thank you.


Al Qaeda at MIT (12 min video)

More. (10 min audio)


Fake Fraudulent Website Warnings?

Does your computer security program block sites and warn you against visiting possibly fraudulent sites when you try to access them? Mine does. Strangely, the sites it warns me about are all conservative sites, or sites that are firearm related businesses.

I got one today when I tried to access Gun Owners of America.

I think people are reporting them as unsafe purposely, knowing they are not unsafe, to dissuade people from visiting and to discredit the site. So I decided to start keeping a list of all the websites that generate that warning, and I am going to call my security provider right now (Webroot) and ask them to investigate this matter.

You should too. I’m sure this activity is against the law, and I’m also sure my security company can track down the IP address of whoever’s doing it.


Federal Judges CANNOT Write and Implement Law

The consequences for a Federal Judge who believes he or she can write law, and that free individual American citizens must submit to that judge’s demands, are vast and quite serious. The punishment fits the crime.

Read this post to be enlightened at what The Law can and should do to any rogue judge who believes they have that power.


The Coalition: The Plan, 4

“No.” “Nope.” “I’m not.” Ron, Cheryl, and Nicki replied. “Check out her website and sign up for her daily news emails. She covers and engages radical Islam with a unique flair and edginess. Her energy and courage are remarkable. Pamela has been successful in posting quotes from the Koran and truthful historical information on Islam’s hate filled anti-Semitism on public transit buses and local advertising billboards, etc. New York and San Francisco are the areas I’m familiar with. She’s successfully defended her actions in court and has won. How could a charge of her misrepresenting Islam be justified when she simply quotes from the Koran?

Following Pamela Geller’s messaging campaign on public buses and stationary advertisement signs, a few Coalitionists in Michigan, Detroit, and I think Memphis is coming on board too, are putting messages on city buses and commercial billboards exposing the Brotherhood for what it is: a wolf in sheep’s clothing, liars, deceivers, sponsors of terrorism, instrumental in maintaining the Palestinian struggle, keeping efforts and finances flowing toward the creation of an Islamic state, a group whose goal is to bring down America and, eventually, make the world Islamic. Those Coalitionist groups are working to educate people with the truth on the Brotherhood as fast as possible. Along with CAIR, which can be discussed another time, the Brotherhood is one of those ‘domestic enemies’ elected officials swore to protect American against that we must defeat.

“Exposure is one thing the Brotherhood does not want. They can successfully lie and get by when their critics are few and their media coverage limited. But if the nation becomes sufficiently educated, the Brotherhood would have no means to squelch such a widespread impact. Along with exposure, Coalitionists have a good chance to shame them. A number of people across this country must recognize this convergence of actions as an opportunity to launch an ‘Exposure and Shame Campaign.’ Mass public outcry as to who these people are and what these people have been able to do is an untold story the public must realize and rally behind, and then overwhelm them, along with the responsible government officials who failed in keeping their oaths to protect America from such enemies, with guilt and shame! Talk about a real life victimization scam of global proportions!

“In addition, and this I wanted to hold till later, but it fits naturally here, Coalitionists must also create a ‘Citizens Court’ where the citizens of this United States hold trial, and we the people charge and try people and groups before all America who are responsible for our current condition. We know the unjust own and rule the justice system in this country. We know they are not above the law. And both we and they fully recognize they refuse to live by the law—although, in traditional historical fashion, we the people are expected to. Therefore, the citizens must bypass traditional legal venues and judge those responsible directly. Because the trials will be in absentia, sentencing isn’t realistically expected to be carried out, but the shame can be anchored to history forever so people’s legacies will declare the truth! Soros comes to mind as a candidate for this. Action such as this follows from faithful pro-Constitutionalists separating from society, by default establishing a separate society, then speaking back to the corrupt society. Much more needs to be explained on this, but later.

“Ideas are coming in, but many think something like a reality TV show or coordinated websites receiving verifiable information on such people are the best ways to go. Establishing a people’s court for the truth is a critical step for getting the power back into the hands of the citizens. Of course, word-of-mouth, neighbor to neighbor is always an effective way to spread certain information and awareness. Larger audiences take a larger communication method. Pressures generated by such actions as I just described, exposure and judgment by the people, should force the Brotherhood and self-centered elected officials to divert attention and resources from their set game plan to run damage control. This change of focus is the people’s opportunity to be prepared with follow up actions to further the power shift.“

“Wow, Oscar! I don’t quite know what to say!” Ron somehow uttered. Nicki was gripping her coffee cup so hard you could hear it cracking. And Cheryl was about to burst! “Oscar, what great ideas! Are things like this really happening? I mean, are people already doing stuff like this, and are these your ideas or someone else’s?” asked Cheryl .

“The strategies come from various people throughout the country; groups sometimes work on them, and whoever is naturally drawn to the ideas will carry them out. Everything aims the same direction with the same overall objective. So, let me ask, given what we’ve covered so far, are you beginning to see the nature of the actions that the Coalition wants to encourage? Is this approach beginning to make sense to you all? Ron? Cheryl? Nicki?” Oscar received thoughtful nods from the three. “Good. I’m glad. Let’s go on.

Walid Shoebat is another person to follow. You’ll recognize the value of him in conjunction with Pamela Geller in no time. And then there’s the work Frank Gaffney does with the Center for Security Policy . Frank’s work is really excellent and unique. Make time to review his radio blog archives and listen to as many 10 minute pod casts as interest you. He offers high level insights on Islamic and geopolitical topics, and he has the best lineup of guests I’ve seen. Many are former national level administrative staff people or elected officials, CIA, military, defense, experts and analysts across a wide range of current hot spots, including Iran, China, Russia, and the countries of Central and South America. Your perspective of America’s threats will grow exponentially by following Frank.”

“Oscar, I’m saturated right now,” said Cheryl.

(To be continued in The Plan, 5)

Previous posts to this series:

It’s Time

Stand Against Tyranny

1) The Coalition

2) Citizens Respond

3) Citizens Respond 2

4) Citizens Respond 3.1

5) Citizens Respond 3.2

6) The Plan 1

7) The Plan 2

8) The Plan 3

The Coalition: The Plan, 3

“Hi, Jo!” Oscar greeted his wife as she entered. “Hello, everyone!” Jo replied, arms full of stuff. “Nice to meet you, Cheryl and Ron. Oscar told me you both would be here today. Really glad you came. Hi Nicki. Hope things are good with you.” “Hi, Jo! Yeah, things are fine,” Nicki replied smiling.

“Hey,” Jo said, “did you all hear about the protests in Germany against the spread of Islam there? That’s turning out to be quite a news item. I wonder how much longer before Americans finally wake up get in gear on our problems with it. Oscar, have you told them what those people up north and in Detroit are doing?” Jo asked. “Not yet, but I will shortly,” he replied. Then Jo continued, “You guys will get a kick out of what these people are doing. I’ll leave so I don’t give it way but have Oscar tell ya!

“Oscar, I need some time in back then I’ll join you guys. Here’s some snacks. Bye, everyone!” Moving with purpose, Jo smiled and waved as she walked briskly down the hallway. “We will do just that! Thanks, dear!” Oscar spoke while peering into the bag of treats. “You all grab something to eat and then we’ll continue.” Nicki snatched the bag before Ron was able to take it from Oscar. Their chuckling soon ended.

Looking intently at those seated with him Oscar stressed, “I need to tell you up front that as a result of what you’ll learn today, you will see the size of the problem people like us face in reclaiming this country, and you may decide to just give up. I understand this, because initially I came to that conclusion myself. You will be overwhelmed by the end of the day and any enthusiasm now held may be replaced by hopelessness. When this ton of bricks lands on you, it’s ok to walk away for a while; but then please reconnect. Understood?” Everyone at the same time in low voice replied, “Understood.” Ron’s reply was unintelligible, because his mouth was full of Danish.

“Please keep in mind that the Coalition is not an official group. No membership. No dues. No card to carry. No leaders. Few formal plans. We’re not an army, or a militia, or a hungry-for-battle-and-blood hate group of any type. We are the pool of citizens across this great country who share at least one key goal, which is to retake this country and reestablish the constitutional framework for law and life. When, in the big picture, the final ‘Us vs. Them’ gets defined, we hope enough citizens know the Pro-Constitution Citizen Coalition, PCC, or The Coalition, is the ‘Us’ and everyone against America remaining a sovereign constitutional republic is the ‘Them.’

“That said, the Coalition does network information, resources, plans and people. We mainly encourage each other by sharing information with others across the nation about what we are doing, because the media is not reporting this. We keep in touch to let other patriots know they are not alone, and to show them ways to have an impact in their areas as well as connect outside their areas if needed. People who are involved with the Coalition know there is a larger network of others like them out there, that there is more for them to do than what they are involved in now. Many are looking for ideas and possible partners for their own ideas.

“The Coalition works to make the objectives of America’s enemies more difficult to obtain. We’re not concerned with how many Coalitionists exist. We simply need to encourage one another to stay on task, educate, enlist, and engage wherever possible. We can have ‘the voice of the Coalition’ speak, but this isn’t necessary. Actions speak well all by themselves. People protesting the recent restrictive gun laws in Washington state is a great example of what others all across America need to be doing. Multiply that event by dozens, or even hundreds, and the message will be felt.

“Many Coalitionists have financial resources but lack the time, talent or skill, or are physically unable to take part, but they are ready to help fund projects or loan resources; such as buildings, second or rental homes, vehicles, aircraft, and so on. Any project costs are typically borne by those doing the project, and they are certainly free to solicit funds if they want, since no person or group is responsible to the Coalition. If a project looks to have significant value, and certain people catch wind of it, then others in different or overlapping networks might take interest and provide other resources. Some backers must avoid public notice, but they exist and are ready to assist.”

Ron yawned, “Sorry Oscar. The sugar trip from that Danish is kill’n me. ‘Scuse me, I’m going to grab some more coffee,” Ron said as he slowly stood and moved toward the kitchen.

“We’ll take a longer break before too long,” Oscar told the group as he joined Ron. “Let’s cover an interesting project currently underway, the one Jo mentioned.” Oscar hurriedly topped off his own cup like Ron had. They both ate similar Danishes, in addition to bagels, and are now struggling to stay awake. “Remember,” Oscar continued as he finished up in the kitchen, “people across the country are coming up with ideas on their own, and they implement them on their own. This is what we are desperately trying to get all pro-Constitution citizens to see and begin doing. The Coalition has some eyes and ears out keeping in touch with what’s happening across the country, and we’re seeding ideas as we can.

“Pamela Geller, anyone familiar with her?” Oscar asked.

(To be continued in The Plan, 4)

Previous posts to this series:

It’s Time

Stand Against Tyranny

1) The Coalition

2) Citizens Respond

3) Citizens Respond 2

4) Citizens Respond 3.1

5) Citizens Respond 3.2

6) The Plan 1

7) The Plan 2

Islam 101 and Lying, Part II.c

Three forms of lying are discussed in this post: Hypocrisy, Compromising One’s Principles, and Exaggeration. I added Exaggeration to the initial list due to how it illustrates valuable points.

Hypocrisy: “Hypocrisy is when a person’s outward does not correspond to his inward, or his words to his deeds. It is of two kinds, hypocrisy in belief and hypocrisy in acts.” (RT r16.1)

Reliance of the Traveller distinguishes between Inward and Outward hypocrisy. (r16.1) Inward hypocrisy pertains to what someone believes, to someone’s faith convictions. These items are known only to an individual until he reveals them. Only he knows the truth value of these beliefs. When shared, such statements will either agree or disagree with his true position. Disagreement between his true position and what is revealed is lying through hypocrisy.

The book’s example of Inward hypocrisy is someone professing commitment to Islam but inwardly he disbelieves. It “is the very worst form of unbelief.” (r16.1)

Outward hypocrisy pertains to non-belief (non-faith) issues. The concern is with what takes place outside a person, not hidden in the mind (belief, faith). All is open for others to view. Do one’s words match his report, his actions match his claims?  Do things match up as stated?

The Traveller gives Outward hypocrisy the most attention. “As for hypocrisy in action, it is that which does not concern one’s faith.  It is also termed spoken hypocrisy, and consists of saying what contradicts one’s true state. It is one of the greatest sins.  It includes being two-faced . . .” (r16.1)

The example of Outward hypocrisy presents a two-faced individual (one person representing himself to two people two different ways) committing an act of hypocrisy—sin—but, because of how things worked out, the charge of sin is negated. This is because “. . .  blameworthiness applies only to worsening relations between people, for if done to settle their differences, it is praiseworthy.” (r16.1)

What just happened? An act typically viewed as sin became something praiseworthy.  A two-faced person who willfully committed hypocrisy was praised because the condition of those he was two-faced with was improved through his sinful act, thereby altering the nature of the act. Instead of saying, “The end justifies means,” one could say, “The end purifies the means.”

A final example of Outward hypocrisy involves self-interest or Islam-interest. A Muslim may determine what impact there might be on him if his being a hypocrite could help him or another Muslim avoid or limit possible harm or damage from one he fears. If one believes being a hypocrite will improve the situation then using hypocrisy is acceptable, even though it is called “one of the greatest sins.” (r16.2)

The Islamic paradigm presented by the Traveller makes a precision cut dividing the domains of beliefs and actions, each having culpable ramifications for every person in countless ways, all the time. The structure is a very complicated way of approaching life. Remember these distinctions concerning hypocrisy: Inward [belief (faith)], and Outward [not belief (not faith) but acts]. Both are said to be sinful at the onset, but outward hypocrisy may be redeemed.

Compromising One’s Principles: Lying by compromising one’s principles hinges on whether a Muslim chooses to speak out or not speak out in reference to a known act of disobedience or unlawful behavior by others. Critical here is whether the individual believes he can effect change without incurring harm himself. If no harm is perceived, and the Muslim says nothing, “Such silence is unlawful.” (r17.1) “But when one’s silence is to prevent damage to oneself or others, it is a permissible form of assuaging those from whom one apprehends harm (mudara), and even recommended in some cases, as when it results in being saved from injustice, or is a means to fulfill a right recognized by Sacred Law.” (r17.1)

So violating sharia by compromising one’s Muslim principles is permissible if considered necessary to better a situation or prevent “damage” to oneself (which presumably would be a consequence of violating sharia).

Exaggeration:  Exaggeration is a form of lying and a violation of sharia law. But, exaggerations are “not serious enough to stigmatize their perpetrator as legally corrupt.” (r9.1)  Like hypocrisy, this is not belief related. It is Outward. It is ranked as lesser offense. Very little commentary accompanies lying by exaggeration. But, let me summarize the main point. Imagine a spectrum:

(Left Boundary) Someone does not intend to lie, or exaggerate, but is merely using hyperbole. “I’ve told you that thousands of times already!” But, in actuality, no one has been counting the number of times.

(Right Boundary) Someone speaks willfully inflating the value of a real situation he was informed about. “I’ve told you that thousands of times already!” In actuality, the speaker knows he’s told the person maybe 1 or 2 times or so. Exaggeration scale: 2 -1000.  Liar at #___.

A Muslim truly concerned about sin, needing to keep the law in all areas of life to the atom’s weight, would want to know where on that spectrum he or she lands when lying by exaggeration. Making the task impossible is the scholar’s statement, “There are intermediate degrees between these two [legitimate exaggeration and non-legitimate exaggeration] at which the exaggerator becomes a liar.” (r9.1) Good luck with that! How can a Muslim realistically discern this value, and then verify his own interpretation of his reasoning and conclusion whereby he obtained this determination? Do Muslims consistently live by the measure of the atom’s weight?

From this short multi-part overview of lying in Islam, I trust you catch a glimpse of how difficult sharia is to live by. Unlike Islam, Christianity makes the situation clear: If someone really wants to try to live righteously before God, that individual must realize that to sin or miss the mark on one thing is the same as violating all of God’s laws. (James 2:10)  Mission impossible!

Second, there is no Inward / Outward split. A lie is a lie. In the end, everything is rooted in the Inward. At least a Christian can know when he violates God’s rule on lying. A Muslim has so much latitude for self-interpretation and rationalization that, realistically, he cannot calculate his sin level, and may never truly know where he stands before he faces Allah.

Humanity’s real problem with God He Himself resolved, as the bible declares, “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us.” (Titus 3:5) There is a righteousness we all need that no human can produce. Understanding God’s holiness correctly forces a person to see God and oneself in such a way that a person walks away from every atom’s weight of self-righteousness and personal works in exchange for Christ’s righteousness received by faith. One puts trust in Jesus Christ’s life and his deeds alone. If that is not your testimony, please pursue the God who did for you what you could never do for yourself.

In the next post, I draw conclusions from this series.

Islam 101 and Lying, Part II.b

In the prior post (Part II.a), I began examining the topic of Lying within Islam. Most lying is viewed as sin.  Some is not. The prophet Mohammed himself identified the categories within which lying does not count as sin. Muslims cannot disagree with the prophet’s words and should attempt to live as he lived.  Any Muslim who rejects the prophet’s words rejects him. Such an attitude is looked upon by other Muslims as intolerable.

Non-Muslims should understand Islam’s views on lying in its various forms and that the distinctions between what type is sinful to them or not sinful are structural components to their thought processes. This is their “normal.” Therefore, non-Muslims should act prudently in situations where trust and the validity of information from Muslim sources are involved. This is not a call to judgment, but based on Islam’s own sources it is a call to be wise. We now consider a form of lying designated as Misleading.

Misleading: Misleading communication is intentional lying. Our focus concerns examining motive and communication structure. The objective of misleading communication is to make it appear the liar is telling “a” truth and that such a reply satisfies the questioner without repercussions to the liar or anything else Islamic. This is by design. It is another example where end justifies means.

Scholars’ comments on lying and misleading, found in section r10.1-10.3 of the Traveller, state that misleading someone is “religiously more precautionary” than to speak a straight out lie. While both are lies, one is ranked as less severe than the other: “But it is religiously more precautionary in all such cases to employ words that give a misleading impression, meaning to intend by one’s words something that is literally true, in respect to which one is not lying, while the outward purport of the words deceives the hearer.”

This fuller statement establishes the point that misleading is intentional, and the next couple of statements show why misleading is permissible:

“This is true of every expression connected with a legitimate desired end, whether one’s own or another’s.” (r8.2) [Legitimate: acceptable according to an established law, principle, rule…]

“One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie.” (RT r8.2)

Well, isn’t that comforting! It takes a scholar to tell Allah’s followers, his best people on earth, there is a slim technicality between blatant lying and crafted lying, and choosing one over the other somehow makes a “religious” difference. Wow! No wonder the Koran speaks of Muslims being accountable for an “atoms weight” of good or evil found during Allah’s final judgment! (Koran 99:8, 10:61)

For their sake, they must know this difference exists, then correctly understand their context in which the decision needs to be made to choose lying that is sinful or  non-sinful, and then speak or act in such a way that what they do is actually in accordance with their lie being sinful or not. I’m so glad the Bible makes it clear all lying has its roots in the devil, and this makes ALL lying sinful. (John 8:44) Clear and simple! But, let’s examine this subject a bit further.

“Giving a misleading impression means to utter an expression that obstinately implies one meaning while intending a different meaning the expression may also have, one that contradicts the ostensive purport.  It is a kind of deception.” (r10.2)

This example may illustrate the point. Imagine a U.S. law enforcement officer seeking information on a possible terrorist threat to the United States knocking on the door of a home whose owner is thought to have information on the suspect, perhaps even hiding him.  The officer knocks on the door and the following conversation takes place.

“Is so-and-so here?”  To which the householder, purposely meaning the space between himself and the questioner rather than the space inside the house, replies, “He is not here.” (r10.2)

Did you catch the intentional shift of location intended by the officer’s question that was different from that of the homeowner’s reply?  I will let the Traveller speak for itself to clarify the distinction of a misrepresentation present in the example: “It often takes the form of the speaker intending a specific referent while the hearer understands a more general one.” (r10.2)

“Scholars say that there is no harm in giving a misleading impression if required by an interest countenanced by Sacred Law that is more important than not misleading the person being addressed [i.e. the outcome is more desirable than telling the truth], or if there is a pressing need which could not otherwise be fulfilled except through lying.” (r10.3)  In all other situations, there is debate among the legality and sinful nature of misleading. This puts the weight for the entire process of knowing whether or not a Muslim is going to speak a lie considered sinful or not sinful on that individual’s shoulders! Any error in judgment and what one considered non-sinful lying might just be lying that is sin, and that person just added another weight to the Hell side of their account. Not good.

In the next post, I will cover both Exaggeration and Hypocrisy.

%d bloggers like this: