headerphoto


Obama Inc. Planned To Deploy Troops To Polling Places

by Daniel Greenfield: This is the sort of thing you expect from Venezuela. But it almost happened under our last left-wing regime.
President Obama’s White House quietly produced a plan in October to counter a possible Election Day cyber attack that included extraordinary measures like sending armed federal law enforcement agents to polling places, mobilizing components of the military and launching counter-propaganda efforts.

The plan allowed for the deployment of “armed federal law enforcement agents” to polling places if hackers managed to halt voting. It also foresaw the deployment of “Active and Reserve" military forces and members of the National Guard “upon a request from a federal agency and the direction of the Secretary of Defense or the President.”
There is a mention in the plan that it's illegal for armed Federal personnel to set up shop in a polling place. And any talk of deploying troops around an election would be a Weimar signpost and deeply distrubing. There is also no concievable call for it. It's reasonable for the FBI to participate in on-site investigations of hacking incidents. No amount of hacking would require the deployment of the military unless the goal is to reverse the results of an election. With all the expected rioting that would occur.

And that does ring some major alarm bells.

The only reasons you need that kind of deployment is to manage the social dysfunction after a natural disaster or political unrest. This sounds like political unrest was anticipated.
--------------------------
Daniel Greenfield is Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. David Horowitz is a Contributing Author of the ARRA News Service

Tags: Daniel Greenfield, FrontPage Mag, Obama Inc., Planned, deploy troops, polling places, ARRA News Service To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

"He Didn't Say, 'Annihilate the Jews'- He said 'Destroy' the Jews"




Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


Hat tip Vlad Tepes, Holocaust Encyclopedia and Breitbart


An imam in Davis, California is under fire for a sermon he gave that has surfaced. In the sermon last Friday, Ammar Shahin reportedly read from the infamous hadith that talks about killing Jews on the Day of Judgment.

"The Prophet Muhammad said: ‘Judgment Day will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Jews hide behind stones and trees, and the stones and the trees say: Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah…’ They will not say: Oh Egyptian, oh Palestinian, oh Jordanian, oh Syrian, oh Afghan, oh Pakistani. The Prophet Muhammad says that they time will come, the Last Hour will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews. We don’t say if it is in Palestine or another place. Until they fight… When that war breaks out, they will run and hide behind every rock, and house, and wall, and trees. The house, the wall, and the tress will call upon the Muslims. It will say: Oh Muslim… It will not say: Oh Palestinian, oh Egyptian, oh Syrian, oh Afghan, oh Pakistani, oh Indian… No, it will say: Oh Muslim. Muslim. When Muslims come back… ‘Come, there is someone behind me – except for the Gharqad tree, which is the tree of the Jews. Except for a certain tree that they are growing today in Palestine, in that area, except this form of tree, which they are growing today… That’s the tree that will not speak to the Muslims."

Oh Allah, liberate the Al-Aqsa Mosque from the filth of the Jews.

Oh Allah, count them one by one and annihilate them down to the very last one. Do not spare any of them.

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/07/25/mosque-defends-imam-meant-destroy-jews-not-annihilate/

The words speak for themselves. The explanation by the Islamic Center of Davis is disingenuous to say the least.

He said "destroy" instead of "annihilate"? What's the difference? Maybe he should have used the expression "final solution".

Contrary to what the mosque claims, Shain was not talking about Jesus. He was not talking about the fight between good and evil. He was talking about Muslims and Jews just as that vicious hadith says.

I am reminded of the famous speech Adolf Hitler gave before the Reichstag in 1939. In that speech he threatened that if the Jews caused another world war, it would result in the "destruction of the Jewish race in Europe." (Vernichtung).

https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/media_fi.php?ModuleId=10005175&MediaId=3108

The explanation by the mosque is also self-defeating. They use the violence at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem to justify Shahin's words. Indeed, Shahin is speaking in response to the events of the past week in Jerusalem. He is invoking the infamous hadith of hate, words that supposedly came from the mouth of the Prophet Mohamed to "annihilate/destroy them (the Jews) down to the very last one".

Take your pick.

I hate to say this, but we have come to the point where the authorities need to monitor what is being said in American mosques. In far too many of them, possibly most, hate speech toward non-Muslims and the West is being preached. Often it is being acted upon. These mosques should be shut down. If the preachers are not American citizens, they should be sent packing back to where they came from.

We must not emulate the Europeans who are tolerating this hate in the very name of tolerance.

"Sharia Is Perfectly Compatible With Our Constitution"




Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


Hat tip Gatestone Institute and Creeping Sharia

That's what Muslim propagandists in the US will tell gullible audiences. I have personally heard it from the mouths of Muslim imams and their non-Muslim apologists including certain politicians and high-ranking police officials.

It is untrue. Here is what we can expect if Sharia law ever gains a foothold in America-as it has in the West.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10632/germany-chechens

Now that we have gotten the Berlin situation out of the way, let me back up the statement I made in the first paragraph. In February 2012, I attended a town hall hosted by the Islamic Center of Orange County in Garden Grove, California. The host was none other than Imam Muzammil Siddiqi. Also present as panelists and speakers were Andre Birotte, Jr. then US Attorney for the Southern District of California, Representatives, Judy Chu (D), Maxine Waters (D), Loretta Sanchez (D), LAPD commander of the Counter Terror Unit Michael Downing, then LASD Sheriff Lee Baca and others. They told us that sharia law was compatible with US law.

http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2012/02/town-hall-at-islamic-center-of-orange.html

As you can see, it was a real all-star cast. The non-Muslim people on that panel were as blind as Angela Merkel is today in the face of the horror that is going on in Germany.

Socialized Medicine? Meet Charlie Gard




Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


If you have not read about  it, there is a heartbreaking story out of Britain concerning the fate of a months-old baby named Charlie Gard. He is afflicted with a debilitating illness which the doctors say is fatal. His parents are not willing to give up and have received an offer of free treatment from a US hospital which has doctors ready to try an alternative approach. The family has received millions in donations to cover the expenses. Yet the hospital refuses to release Charlie to his parents so they can bring him to the US. Worse yet, three UK courts have decided in the doctors' favor as well as the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg France. (That's a story in itself.)

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/07/06/charlie-gard-may-leaves-door-open-for-treatment-abroad-as-us-hospital-offers-to-take-him-for-free.html

Here is an article in The Guardian in which the writer supports the decisions of the doctors and the courts and asks who the child actually belongs to.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/06/charlie-gard-heartbreaking-society-cant-shun-experts

To the above writer, I would answer that in the case of the UK, it seems the child belongs not to the parents, not to itself, but to the State. That is the result of socialized medicine in the UK. Remember all the talk about death panels? Here are your death panels. And this "expert" on US health care even has to attack President Trump for having a heart and offering to help by saying he is trying to "demolish publicly funded health care".

This is another example of a Europe that has lost its collective soul. Not only have Europeans had their rights of free speech and right to safety stripped away from them by their globalist governments, they now witness a desperate family having not only three UK courts rule against them and tell them they cannot remove their child from the hospital that wants to remove life support over their objections, but they have to have some European court in France tell them the same thing. Yes, folks, the final word is decided not in the UK but in France. And that decision is that death is what is in Charlie's best interest.

And you wonder why the Brits voted for Brexit?

I'm also not buying the argument about this child being in pain. The photos and the statements of parents refute that.

This is not what I want the US to become; a country where you can't remove your child from a hospital to seek treatment elsewhere, where you have the courts, the foreign secretary, and the prime minister aligned against you to say nothing of some court in France.

Britain makes me sick.