Clinton Reaches Out to An Iranian Front Group for Campaign Donations

When you see who Hillary takes money from, you have to wonder what she will do in return. She is already a known threat to our national security.

Hillary Clinton is being outspent by Bernie Sanders 3 to 1 and keeps going back to the same donors who have for the most part given the maximum donations, but don’t worry, she’s found some new donors.

A pro-Iran lobby group that is working against US interests and is actively trying to kill new antiterrorism laws will be at a fundraising event with her this weekend.

This Sunday, Clinton will attend a fundraiser hosted by Twitter executive Omid Kordestani and his wife Gisel Hiscock along with National Iranian American Council (NIAC)  board member Lily Sarafan and Noosheen Hashemi, who serves on the pro-Iran advocacy group Ploughshares, a major funder of the pro-Iran agenda.

NIAC advocates against the pro-Israel community and on Iran’s behalf, they pushed against sanctions, have close ties to Barack Obama, pressured the US to abandon sanctions, and they spread propaganda the same way Press TV does. In 2013, they put out the lie that President Rouhani was a moderate and US papers lapped it up.

Ploughshares partners with NIAC and with the White House to pressure the Jewish community and others to back the Iran nuclear deal.

Iranian state-run media have referred to the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC) since at least 2006 as “Iran’s lobby” in the U.S.

It portrays itself in the media as an independent group of Iranian expatriates. But Sam Nunberg, director of the Legal Project at the Middle East Forum project, describes the NIAC as an Iranian “front group.”

And documents released during the discovery phase of a defamation lawsuit NIAC filed against Seid Hassan Daioleslam, editor of the Iranian American Forum and one of the regime’s most public critics, include correspondence with Mohammed Javad Zaif, then Iran’s permanent representative to the United Nations. He later negotiated the nuclear “deal” with Iran.

They are working to block legislation that will require Iranians to enter the US without a visa. The legislation is meant to keep terrorists out of the country. Why do the Iranians want that, do you think?

Back in 2013, Javad Zarif, the Iranian Foreign Minister who negotiated the peace talks with Iran, told  Mehr News that they would use our democracy and our divisions against us:

“The Republic of Iran has the power and capacity to challenge U.S. and Israel in the international arena. To achieve this we must believe in the abilities of ourselves and of our diplomatic team. If we think that there is a unified voice in America, we are mistaken. By utilizing the opposing views in the U.S. we can be the winners in the (diplomatic) scene, and, of course, we can take advantage of the Zionist regime’s weaknesses.”

Also in 2013, Hossein Naghavi, the speaker of the parliament’s Committee described Zarif’s plan to play our game:

“We consider enemies as enemies and believe that we should not let the Zionists (Israel) present themselves as victims. We believe the U.S. is not a super-power and we can defeat the U.S. and Israel in the diplomatic arena. We should believe in the power and capacities of the revolution and the country. The United States and the Zionists want to show that Iran has no room to play. But we have both the power and the capacity. We know the rules of the game and we can play the best game.”

The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) aggressively lobbies on behalf of the Iranian government likely with direct communications to Tehran itself.

This group has ties to Hollywood, industry, Silicon Valley and the White House.

Iran’s representatives in the US will certainly expect favors for their donations.


Donald Trump Raleigh Full Speech, Massive Campaign Rally in North Carolina 12/4/2015

North Carolina 12/4/2015

MSNBC was reported that Trump had been shouted down, humiliated and embarrassed, and forced off the stage at a campaign event. And it turns out it never happened.

NBC and CBS both falsely reported that leading Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump “abruptly” ended his speech and left the stage after being repeatedly interrupted by Black Lives Matter protesters at a campaign rally in Raleigh, North Carolina on Friday night.

The reports were flat-out lies. Video of Trump’s speech shows he ended the speech on his own accord. Other videos show Trump then mingled with the crowd afterward for several minutes shaking hands and signing autographs.

A total of about two dozen protesters–some protesting solo, others in groups–were forcibly removed from the rally by security as the protesters disrupted Trump ten times over the course of his 50:35 speech. Many of the protesters were Black Lives Matter supporters.

A capacity crowd of 7,800 attended the rally held at the Dorton Arena. About one hundred more protesters gathered outside the arena. WRAL-TV reported the protesters “at times blocked gates at the event” trying to prevent Trump supporters from attending the rally. A protester reported on Twitter that state troopers started preventing them from blocking the entrances. That protester also claimed there were about forty protesters inside the arena.

One false news report was made by NBC reporter Katy Tur, who is assigned to cover the Trump campaign. Tur posted to Twitter from the rally:

“Now 10. Trump ends speech abruptly and leaves stage.”

Tur’s report was immediately picked up by MSNBC’s top-rated Rachel Maddow Show.

The other false report was by CBS’ Trump campaign reporter Sopan Deb and was headlined, Black Lives Matter protesters cut off Donald Trump in North Carolina

Deb’s article was written with an opinion slant to embarrass Trump over his criticism of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont for allowing Black Lives Matter protesters to take over his stage and microphone at a rally last summer.

“GOP frontrunner Donald Trump abruptly ended his rally in his first visit to the state after his speech was interrupted at least 10 times by protesters – many of them chanting “Black Lives Matter!” as they were escorted out.”

…”But it was Trump who ended the speech early, which was striking, given his comments at an August press conference about fellow presidential candidate, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who himself cut a rally short in Seattle as a result of Black Lives Matter protesters.

“I thought that was disgusting,” Trump said at the time. “That showed such weakness, the way he was taken away by two young women — the microphone. They just took the whole place over.”

“The protesters overshadowed Trump’s escalation of some of his rhetoric on foreign policy during his speech…”

When the first protester spoke out, Trump used the interruption to criticize the media covering his campaign:

“You know the shame is, that it’s one, it’s one person and the dishonest media–they are dishonest–you don’t believe how dishonest. They are the most, they are the most dishonest people. I mean a big percentage of them, they are so dishonest. They are so dishonest. They will make that one person into the headline. ‘Trump has’…they can’t even use the plural. They can’t put the ‘s’ but they’ll figure it out. But they’ll say, “Trump has protesterrr.””

Trump turned out to be wrong about the number of protesters he would end up dealing with Friday night but was dead right about the dishonest media.

Rachel Maddow did a segment on her show Friday night about the Trump rally. The headline and description at MSNBC reads:

Donald Trump ends speech after 10 protest interruptions

“Rachel Maddow shows Republican front-runner Donald Trump being interrupted repeatedly while speaking at a rally in Raleigh, North Carolina, abruptly ending the speech after the tenth interruption. Duration: 2:13”

Maddow mocked Trump for initially saying the ‘dishonest media’ would highlight the one protester when it turned out to be ten protests during his speech. Maddow noted one of those “dishonest reports” was at the rally and counted the number of protests. Maddow ended her report stating, “At the end of the tenth interruption, Mr. Trump ended his speech and walked off the stage.”

Video of Trump’s speech shows that after “the last question” (as stated by the Trump staffer with the crowd mic) from the crowd was posed at the 49:45 mark, Trump spent a minute answering. He then pivoted and went into his closing remarks.

“Ladies and gentlemen. Ladies and gentleman, this has been such an honor. When you…remember this, remember this…(Protester shouts) I think he came back, I think he came back. Don’t worry about him, we’ll do this quickly…One pe…So, that’s okay. Good job. Good job. Individual people, but they’re all friends they all want to make havoc.”

Trump then resumed his closing remarks with a profound observation on the groundswell in the country.

“We are sitting on something that’s bigger than any of us understands or knows. I always say, “Make our country great again.” And I’ve been say been saying for the last three weeks–because I’ve really gotten to know the people. We are going to make our country great again. Greater than ever before! I love you! Thank you very much! We’re gonna make it greater than ever before! Thank you everybody! Thank you! (Audio cut, Trump speaks one more sentence.)

Trump began his closing remarks before the last protest. He then spoke for thirty seconds after that final protester interruption. Trump built his closing statement to a crescendo and ended with several ‘thank yous’. There was nothing abrupt or forced about the end of the speech.

And far from “leaving the stage” due to the protesters, Trump mingled with the audience after the speech. He spent several minutes shaking hands, signing autographs and posing for pictures with supporters as he has done at other rallies.

According to the YouTube video, Trump spoke for about 50:35, putting the speech in the ballpark range of his other campaign speeches. Trump’s voice was weak and scratchy throughout the speech.

NBC’s Tur also incorrectly reported the length of the speech, putting it at 49 minutes.

NBC’s Ali Vitali also posted a report, to NBC, in which he too made it seem the protesters forced Trump to cut short his appearance.

Trump Interrupted Ten Times at North Carolina Rally

…”The first interruption came mere minutes into Trump’s remarks to a full house of nearly 8,000, and they continued periodically until Trump’s abrupt exit from the stage.”

…”The candidate, whose usual bellow was replaced by a rasp that sounded like the start of a cold, ended his rally-turned-town-hall suddenly and earlier than usual. The full event lasted less than an hour, a rarity for a candidate who usually stumps for at least an hour and who spoke and took questions for almost two hours a few nights earlier in Manassas, Virginia.”

Senior Trump adviser Daniel Scavino, Jr. went on a Twitter tear Friday night after the media lied about what happened at the rally. Scavino posted screen grabs of other Trump rally videos with the length of the rallies. He also posted several short videos taken from the stage of Trump working the crowd after the speech. (Note Scavino had the speech length at 55 minutes–4:25 longer than the speech was but that is still a normal speech time for Trump.)

Scavino also posted a Periscope video of Trump working the crowd to reinforce the point that he did not ‘abruptly’ leave the stage due to protesters.


Scavino solely went after NBC. Apparently he was not aware of CBS telling the same false story.

The fairest report on the Trump rally in Raleigh was written by Jeff Tiberii for WUNC-FM, a public radio station.

Rush Limbaugh: Why They Won’t Call It Islamic Terrorism

RUSH: I’m gonna try to explain something today, a question that has a lot of people flummoxed.  So they just announced, CNN led the pack, but now everybody is reporting that Syed Farook, which means global warming in Arabic, climate change, and his wife have been influenced by ISIS.  You’ve heard that.  And yet have you noticed the government still is not calling this terrorism.  Have you noticed that?  ISIS inspired the couple, but this is not yet terrorism.  And they’re now angling further down the road of workplace violence or postpartum depression.  Have you heard that one?  The wife was postpartum depressed and she radicalized the guy and they blew up everything.

Since this all began, it has been apparent to you and to me and to anybody with even a pea brain that we were the victims of a terror attack, that this was Islamic terror that took place in San Bernardino, California, and yet the authorities refuse even now to call it that.  And when asked why, they say, “Well, you know, we’re still examining all the evidence.  We haven’t yet figured out a motive.  We’re doing everything we can.”  And finally, after a while, you get the idea here they don’t want to call this terrorism.  And a lot of people are scratching their heads, “What? Why be so obtuse?”  And I am here today to give you the reason.

I want to go back to the situation in San Bernardino, because this is going to answer a lot of people’s questions.  Even now government officials from the FBI to the Regime to whenever, will not say that this was terrorism, even after linking it to ISIS.

And in fact, folks, to just give you a little hint, linking it to ISIS actually helps the government not call it terrorism because ISIS is not Islam.  No, I’m not saying that.  The government says that.  The left, the media says it.  ISIS is not Islam.  You’ve heard Obama say that.  ISIS is making a mockery of Islam.  In fact, what you really need to understand about the way our government looks at Islam, they look at Islam as anti-terror as well.  Islam is anti-terrorism.  Therefore, no terrorism can actually be Islamic.  Islam is the religion of peace.  We say that jokingly.  That’s actually the position of the US government.  It’s rooted in political correctness and fear and a number of other convoluted things.

The religion of peace can’t possibly engage in terrorism.  Therefore, ISIS is not Islam, and what happened in San Bernardino is not terrorism because these were Muslims.  And Muslims are the religion of peace and were influenced by ISIS, but ISIS is not Islam, and therefore there was no official terrorism.  Another word you can bank on hearing, “radicalized.”  What does that mean, the way our government is using it and the media?  “Radicalized” means we had this nice guy and his lovely wife — by the, has anybody seen a picture of her?

She had been vetted. She had a K-1 fiance-type visa.  Has anybody ever seen a picture of this babe?  I haven’t.  Have you?  I don’t think they’ve put one out.  I wonder why.  Anyway, ol’ Syed was running around having a grand old time collecting pipe bombs and stuff for his garage and his car. He’s just a decent guy going to holiday party, and he gets into an argument here with a messianic Jew.  That could be confusing for those of you in Rio Linda.

A messianic Jew is a Jewish person that believes Jesus Christ is the savior.  You may think that’s contradictory but for the purposes of understanding here, just accept that.  You have a messianic Jew that this nice guy, Fareed Syed Farook GPS, whatever, got into an argument with. And apparently the messianic Jew provoked poor old Syed. He was running around minding his own business and this messianic Jew started talking about Islam and the religion of peace and just set the poor guy off.

He ended up being radicalized by that and by his wife.  By the way, a sound bite coming up about how Islamic Muslim women are far more radical than the men.  And it’s our media saying this.  I thought there was a Republican War on Women going on here.  Instead, the Drive-Bys and the Democrat Party are just attacking Islamic women.  So this woman takes this innocent young Syed Farook. As I say, he’s minding his own business, going about his day enjoying the American dream. He’s come back from a couple trips to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

He went to the Hajj in Mecca. He’s done it all, and now he’s living his life and he’s loving it. And then, all of a sudden, his coworker starts talking about religion to him, and they get into this big argument! His wife starts radicalizing him, and he snaps.  Radicalized!  “Radicalized” is a new keyword for you to understand that allows our government to not say “terrorism.”

“Oh, he was a nice guy, wasn’t bothering anybody, going about his business, living the American dream; then he got radicalized.  Doesn’t matter by who! Radicalized by coworker, radicalized by his wife, radicalized by ISIS, whatever. And he lost it. Workplace violence. He couldn’t help himself! It was workplace violence.  He was provoked.  Damn it, damn it, the workplace made him do it.”  That’s what is evolving as we sit her at this moment that… (interruption)

Oh, stuff in the garage? Well, that’s part of the radicalization. That’s part of the being radicalized.  The point you have to understand is our government’s official position. This is why they have been waiting and waiting, hoping that some circumstance or series of circumstances could be discovered to allow them to construct a scenario whereby this man is not a terrorist and this was not terrorism.  (interruption)  I’ll… (interruption) I don’t… (interruption)  Well, whether they think we believe it or not, that’s why they’re doing what they’re do.

The real question is: “Why are they so afraid of identifying Islamic terrorism for what it is?” You remember… You might think I’m saying some crazy things.  Don’t forget, immediately after 9/11, the whole posture of our government was: “What did we do to make them so mad?  What did we do to cause this?” And the “religion of peace” line. You know, Obama says we can’t use the word “terrorism.” We can’t use the word “foreign.” We can’t use any of these provocative words that insult them. “Islamic terrorism” is a phrase not permitted to be used by the US government.

I mean, don’t doubt me on this, folks.  It is what it is.  And it’s a… (interruption) I can’t explain why.  The logic here escapes me a bit.  I could just speculate.  Fear of billions of Muslims?  Sympathy?  Some other form of identification with Muslims?  I don’t know.  The fact that the United States is who’s really guilty?  The fact that the United States is responsible for all this that’s happening to us, that we sort of brought it on ourselves, maybe even deserve it?


The Washington Examiner has a story.  “Report: Scale of Islamic State Recruitment in US Unprecedented.”  Have you heard, by the way, that one of the places Obama wants to relocate these arriving Syrian refugees is Redlands, California, where Syed Farook “Climate Change” lived?  That’s where Obama wants to put these new Syrian refugees.

And now we have: “Scale of Islamic State Recruitment in US Unprecedented.”  But that doesn’t mean we’re importing terrorists.  Islam is different than ISIS!  Yeah, they’ve got Islamic in their name, but they’re not Islamic. See, Islam’s a religion of peace.  Therefore, ISIS cannot be Islamic.  I don’t care what they call themselves, our official position is: “They are not Islamic.”

I mentioned in the first half hour that much of this comes from Andrew McCarthy who has written extensively about Islam.  He’s tried cases against noted figures such as the blind sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman.  Put him away, in fact, United States attorney.  So Rudy Giuliani comes on television the day after San Bernardino and says, “If you can’t see this is an act of terror, you’re a moron.”

And yet even as we sit here at this very moment, our government still will not call it an act of terror.  They will not even call it terrorism.  They’re looking, as I’ve just previously discussed, for any other number of alternative explanations.  Why?  What’s going on here?  Well, it goes like this.

Our government denies that terrorism is caused by Islamic doctrine.  Now, that is true, and it is a declarative statement.  It’s not arguable.  This administration and even in prior administrations, the Bush administration went to great lengths to exempt Islam from terrorism.  They say Islam is a religion of peace and terrorism is not really Islam.  It’s a weird, way-out bastardization of it, but it is not Islam.

McCarthy decided to read the Koran as part of his preparation for trial because he couldn’t believe this guy, the blind sheik, some of this stuff he was saying. It had to be vitriol, had to be wacko extremism, and it wasn’t.  He found out it was right from the scripture. That the blind sheik and all that he was discussing and promoting, was right from the book.  But our government refuses to see that and instead claims that terrorism is not part of Islamic doctrine.  Islam, the religion of peace and any terrorism that happens, is not really Islamic or Islamic inspired.

This is called a willful blindness.  It’s also political correctness.  Our government is in denial of radical Islam as written. “Unwilling to deal with Islam as it is, the government must make up an Islam of its very own. Regardless of the abundance of evidence to the contrary, the government holds that Islam is a religion of peace, case closed.”

They have made up their own version of Islam to avoid having to deal with the reality of Islam because it’s just too daunting, frightening, scary, whatever, and they don’t want to deal with it.  Therefore to the government, terrorism committed by people who happen to be Muslim is not in any way a reflection of legitimate interpretation of Islam.  You might find this hard to believe, but if you’re doubting any of this, just search your own memory.  All the times that we have heard that Islam’s a religion of peace and that we can’t use the word “terrorism” to describe it and Obama will not use it.  And then remember all the times that this administration actually claims that violence by white right-wing white Christians poses a greater threat to the people of this country than Islam.  Islam’s a religion of peace, and anybody conducting terrorism in the name of Islam is a liar and a fraud.  They are bastardizing the religion of peace.

So again, to the government, terrorism committed by people who are Muslim is not a reflection on the legitimate interpretation of Islam, even if Islamic supremacist ideology, which endorses jihad violence — Islam, standard, mainstream Islam endorses jihad violence, but our government doesn’t want to admit that or deal with it.  Here in America, as in Western Europe, this is the key to understand.  The violence is deemed anti-Islamic.  Meaning, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, they can’t be Islamic.  Islam is the religion of peace.  They are bastardizing it. They are frauds. They are calling themselves Islamic and they are calling themselves Muslim, but they’re not.  Because Islam is as anti-terror as you and I are.  Islam is the religion of peace.

I’m telling you what our government’s position is.  The US military position.  The FBI, you the name, this is why they will not call these acts of terror “terror,” because, if they have any connection to Islam, it can’t be, because Islam is the religion of peace.  And Islam, genuine, real Muslims are as opposed to Al-Qaeda and ISIS as we are.  That is what has been dictated to our law enforcement agents by their superiors.  If those were your instructions, and you have a terror attack and you’re out there reporting to the media, trying to answer questions, you’d sound like a babbling buffoon, too, because you’d have to come up with ways to violate the very common sense you know is true.

So what are the policy implications of the government and this fantasy Islam, what are the policy implications of a United States government that believes Islam is as anti-terror as you and I are?  Well, it means that Islamic doctrine can never be cited as the cause of terrorism, as a matter of policy.  And it never is.  It never is.  This leads, for example, to what is happening right now this very day, this preposterous hand-wringing over radicalization.

We are supposed to believe that young people like Syed Farook “Climate Change,” who just happens to be Muslim, spontaneously, out of the blue, for no reason whatsoever, he was provoked by a coworker or radicalized by his wife, all of a sudden became mean and angry, a radicalized terrorist.  But that’s not who he really was.  Just a young guy running around living his life and then something or a series of things happened to radicalize him, as if there were no doctrine, as if there were no body of thought that was inducing the radicalization.

It’s so absurd. I can understand some of you think that this makes no sense.  It doesn’t make any sense.  That’s the point, folks.  It doesn’t make any sense.  So here you have peaceful, blending into the background, cheap, poor little beard people, making fun of a little guy named Syed Farook, and all of a sudden he becomes radical.  Radicalized by what?  Not just by who, but by what?  What radicalized him?  Well, it isn’t Islam.  No, because Islam’s the religion of peace.  So it must be ISIS.  Yes.

So the news today that this guy was influenced by ISIS is not the administration getting close to calling this terrorism.  This is a classic example of the government taking the occasion to say it isn’t, because Islam is as opposed to ISIS as you and I are.  Because Islam is the religion of peace, ISIS is bastardizing Islam, and if this little guy has been radicalized by his wife or by ISIS or whatever, it’s further proof that Muslims, slash, Islamic terrorism is not at play here.  And it ultimately leads to the decree or the belief that terrorist organizations like ISIS and Al-Qaeda, therefore, are not Islamic.

You have to conclude that they’re either just bad people. They’re just wanton murderers or they’re mentally deranged or they’re sick or they’ve been hijacked or perverted or whatever, but they have perverted and they have hijacked Islam.  ‘Cause Islam’s the religion of peace.  I’m telling you what our government’s position is, and it has been since prior to Obama, by the way.  Islam as a religion of peace can have nothing to do with these acts of terror.  So if the cops come upon a mass murder attack that is clearly instigated by Islamic doctrine, they are not permitted to conclude that it is terrorism because they have been directed by their superiors in law enforcement to maintain that Islam is against terrorism.

It’s part of the propaganda that your kids are taught, part of the propaganda the media spreads that Islam is a religion of peace and is against terrorism, not sponsoring it, not doing it.  Thus the law enforcement agents believe they cannot call terrorism “terrorism” unless and until they uncover evidence proving that the Muslim mass murderers have some tie to a designated non-Islamic terror group like ISIS or Al-Qaeda, and bingo, bingo.  What do we get today?  “There’s an ISIS connection,” and once again none of this has anything to do with Islam.  That’s how it works at the highest levels of our government.

RUSH:  Okay, so now the next thing to happen since this ISIS connection has been magically discovered, now it will slowly be called “terrorism.” Slowly but surely, you will see law enforcement now acknowledge that it is terrorism, but not “Islamic terrorism” because there’s no such thing.  The Islamic religion is a religion of peace!  The agents investigating now have what they claim is a provable link between the jihadists in San Bernardino and ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

And our government has decreed that ISIS and Al-Qaeda are non-Islamic. Therefore, we can call it terrorism.  I don’t think that’s happened yet.  They’re very, very cautious about this.  They need enough time to go by for people to absorb the fact that ISIS inspired this.  ISIS is not Islam.  ISIS is pure evil bastardizing this, and therefore they are indeed terrorists. But Syed Farook was not.  He was radicalized by Islam or his wife.

Here’s Jake in San Bernardino.  Jake, glad you called.  Great to have you up first today.  Hello, sir.

CALLER:  Hey, how you doing today, Rush?

RUSH:  I’m great.  Thank you.

CALLER:  I’m good.  I’m a student on the campus of Cal State San Bernardino.  I’ve been going here for three years now.  And with the shootings that have taken place a couple days ago, it’s just sickening for me that teachers on the liberal left are saying this is still not terrorism.

RUSH:  Did you say your professors are saying that?

CALLER:  Yes, sir.  They’re still saying it.  And if you add up to all the facts with, you know, the type of ammunition they used, the type of gun, the planning, the pipe bomb, how is this still work-related violence?  I mean, it’s just a bunch of crap to me, here, that they’re still saying this.

RUSH:  Well, I’m sorry you missed the first hour.  That’s what I just spent 50 minutes explaining, but let me give it to you briefly again. The reason… Your professors are leftists.  Leftists support Obama.  Obama is the United States government at the moment.  The official position of the US government is that Islam is a religion of peace and is as anti-terror as you and I are, and therefore whatever this guy did is a bastardization of Islam because he was radicalized by, say, ISIS.

ISIS is the bad actor here now.  ISIS radicalized him. But ISIS is anti-Islam.  ISIS is not Islam.  ISIS is a bunch of horrible, rotten, mean people terrorizing people, but that’s not what Islam is.  But you’re soon gonna see this now called terrorism since they can link this guy to ISIS.  The effort here and the reason why so much time has gone by… Nothing has changed from the first moment we heard of this event until now. The events, details, all the same. Nothing’s changed.

But now they’ve got this ISIS link, and so now they will be able to say it’s terrorism.  Because, in their structure, Islam is not in any way associated with terrorism.  There is no militant Islam.  Islam is the religion of peace.  Al-Qaeda, ISIS, their offshoots, are bastardizing Islam.  And that’s why we worry about a backlash against innocent Muslims who have no relationship to this, no tie to this, and they are just as opposed to it as you and I.  That’s why we worry about the backlash.

Now, I know that makes no sense to you.  It doesn’t make any sense.  It is a fantasy version of Islam that our government created some time ago to avoid having to deal with the reality of Islam.  Now, the reasons for that, they’re up for grabs. Is it their Islamic sensibilities, sympathies, is their fear there are so many that we don’t want to go to war. We don’t want to provoke, we don’t want to irritate, we don’t want to…

I don’t have the answer to why the reluctance, other than to say it’s the left and the left considers conservatives and Republicans to be their number one enemy, not Islam.  Certainly not Islam! We conservatives and Republicans are a greater enemy that even Al-Qaeda or ISIS.  And, by the way, this is not just our government.  Folks, this is the way the Brits look at it.  This is the way the United Nations looks at it.  This is why Israel is isolated in the Middle East.

This… Call it a Fantasy Island version of Islam or any other term you want to describe it. But it is a manufactured version of Islam that permits the government to exempt Muslims from any association with these acts from 9/11 on. You name it.  But, Jake, you keep a sharp eye, because your professors, now that the ISIS link has been made, are going to start calling it terrorism.  But they’re gonna make sure you understand it’s not Islamic terrorism, because there’s no such thing.

RUSH:  Okay, you still think that I’m wrong about this?  Well, then, get this.  Criticism of Islam equals Islamophobia, and the attorney general of the United States, Loretta Lynch, has just warned that people will be prosecuted for criticism of Islam — i.e., telling the truth that Islamic terrorism exists.  You can be prosecuted if you tell the truth about Islam.

RUSH:  What a banner day for your host. Right on cue, folks — right on schedule — the FBI agent in San Bernardino just went to the microphones in the latest press conference and said that they can now admit/announce that they are investigating the shooting in San Bernardino as an act of terrorism.  Thank you.  Thank you.  Yes.  Yes, they called it right on the money. But do not be confused.  This is not Obama and the FBI admitting “Islamic terrorism.” What has happened here is, they found this link to ISIS.

They found the possibility that this innocent young man who believed in the religion of peace somehow got radicalized either by this mysterious wife of his, or some contact with ISIS, and that turned him into a wild madman, a madman gunning down coworkers.  This is not Islamic terrorism, because there isn’t any such thing.  Islam is a religious of peace.  And for your purposes, what you need to understand is that Islam and practicing Muslims are as opposed to terrorism as you and I are.  So after all of this, they can now say it’s terrorism, ’cause they’ve got their link to this ISIS group, which is not Islamic.

Make no mistake.

Don’t doubt me.

RUSH: It is terrorism, but if it’s inspired by ISIS, then it isn’t Islam. If it’s inspired by an out-of-control, radicalized wife who poisoned the guy’s mind, that’s not Islam.  If it’s workplace violence, that’s not Islam.  And they weren’t gonna call this terrorism until they had a scenario such as that set up to explain this Islam. As far as our government’s concerned — political correctness and all — it’s a religion of peace.  It does not sponsor terrorism.

It opposes it, much as we do. It does not create terrorism, it doesn’t preach terrorism, and this government…  It’s why the Democrats are going to pray at mosques today to show solidarity with Muslims to show that we don’t blame them.  This is ISIS, which is not Muslim, or it’s not Islam. Or it’s the wife, not Islam. Or it’s workplace violence, not Islam.  That’s the takeaway that you have. It’s still gonna be terrorism.

It can be terrorism and they can still find a way to blame it on mean Americans such as workplace violence if they want to.  That’s my only point here, and it’s why you’ve got to be… The point is here is that your government is lying about this, making all this stuff up and exempting Islam as a religion of peace for whatever politically correct reasons or sympathetic reasons they have or what have you.  This is a long way around of telling you they’re lying, is the point.


Iran Deal: Yes, Obama Is Using Antisemitism

Obama knows what he is doing.

He is not hiding it–he is not blowing a “dog whistle.” Rather, he is making a clear (and familiar) case that he is the victim of an organized conspiracy–not to arouse hatred, but to rally his base (including loyal, left-wing Jews) to his defense.

That is not incitement, but it relies on antisemitism nonetheless.

And that matters, not because it disqualifies Obama’s views from debate, but because it confirms he has not really reckoned with the nature of the enemy with whom he is dealing, for whom hating Jews is more than a marginal commitment.


Mark Levin: Democrats ‘Will Have Blood On Their Hands’ For Supporting Iran Deal

Stop Iran Deal Rally. Washington D.C.  9/9/2015

Nationally-renowned author and Conservative talk show host Mark Levin sent a defiant message to GOP leadership Wednesday afternoon at the Stop Iran rally at Capitol Hill.

In his fiery speech, Levin demanded they do more to stop the deal. He also took aim at Democrat leadership in both the legislative branch and the White House, suggesting that the Iran deal shows how far to the left the Democratic Party has fallen.

“Never before has a President of the United States. Never before has a political party consented to funding and arming the enemy. Never before has a President entered into agreements with a terrorist regime that holds American hostages; that has killed and maimed thousands of American soldiers, and that seeks nuclear weapons and ICBMs (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles)  to attack his own country,” said Levin.

“Barack Obama makes Neville Chamberlain look like George S. Patton,” the former Reagan staffer added.
Levin highlighted the dangers involved if the deal were to be implemented in Congress.

“This phony deal allows the Iranian terrorist regime to inspect its own nuclear sites; to continue uranium enrichment; to build advanced centrifuges; to perfect their ICBMS; to spend $150 billion dollars on terrorism, and in the end, to secure nuclear warheads,” he said.

He then had some choice words for the Democratic Party.

“As one Democrat after another… supports this surrender, It’s clear that the Democrats no longer represent the party of Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy. It’s now the Democrat Party of Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky and Barack Obama,” said the nationally-syndicated conservative talk radio host.

“The Democrat Party will have blood on their hands as a result of this deal for the rest of time. And let me be clear, this deal sows the seeds of war.”

He focused on the threat posed by a rogue and radical Iranian regime. “The enemy is emboldened, and the enemy will be well-armed and seek regional and world domination.”

“How do we know” that Iran is so ill-intentioned, Levin asked. “They told us so.”

Levin urged Republicans to stand up against the agreement, recommending that GOP leadership take the scaffolding set-up for the ongoing repairs of the Capitol Building and “use it on their damn spines.”

“The Republican Party, particularly their leadership, has abandoned the Constitution and the Treaty Power of the United States Senate. It is recklessly and deliberately avoiding any serious confrontation with a disastrous imperial president. They can stop this,” he said. “They can invoke the Treaty Clause right now. They can suspend the filibuster rule and vote against lifting sanctions right now. They can stand between Obama and the Iranian terrorist regime and protect our nation and our allies, but they won’t. Gone is the party of Dwight D. Eisenhower; gone is the party of Ronald Reagan.

“Instead we get the party of [Senator Mitch] McConnell and [Senator Bob] Corker and [Speaker of The House] Boehner,” Levin added, as the audience voiced their disapproval with GOP leadership. “Tell Republicans: this is not about getting along with Obama, it’s about stopping Obama. It’s about Americans’ interests. It’s about our children and the future generations.”

“And a final word: Let me warn the 7th-century throwbacks who like to chant ‘Death to America’ in their home country. We Americans have been threatened by better than you. We Americans have been threatened by forces far stronger than you, and we’ve obliterated every damn one of them,” he concluded, as the audience applauded and broke out into chants of “U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A.”

Donald Trump: “We Are Led by Very Stupid People”

Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) warned of catastrophic consequences should the Iranian nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration pass Congress, including death and the possibility of nuclear conflict.

Appearing during an hours-long rally on the Capitol lawn where speaker after speaker railed against the deal, Republican leadership and President Obama, Cruz warned that the Obama administration would become “the leading financier of radical Islamic terrorism” if he deal goes through.

“It’s worth remembering that if this deal goes through we know to an absolute certainty that people will die,” Cruz said.

Trump, who took the stage to REM’s “It’s the End of the World as We Know It,” said that he has “been doing deals for a long time” but has never seen one like the Iran accord.

“I’ve been making lots of wonderful deals, great deals, that’s what I do,” Trump said. “Never ever, ever in my life have I seen any transaction so incompetently negotiated as our deal with Iran. And I mean never.”

Trump had choice words for Obama and Congressional leadership.

“We are led by very, very stupid people. Very, very stupid people. We cannot let it continue,” Trump told crowd, eliciting large cheers. He said America “can’t beat anybody” and vowed that would change if he is elected president.

“We will have so much winning if I get elected that you may get bored with winning. Believe me!” Trump said. “You’ll never get bored with winning.”

error: Content is protected !!