RUTHFULLY YOURS

Was Muslim convert Alton Nolen, who allegedly beheaded co-worker Colleen Hufford and stabbed another woman in Oklahoma on Sept. 25, inspired by ISIS, the Islamist group that rules large parts of Syria and Iraq? (ISIS is also known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, ISIL, Islamic State, and Da`esh.)

Law enforcement and the media have, as usual, distanced the attack from Islam and terrorism, implying the alleged crime is an example of “workplace violence” due to Nolen’s recent firing from Vaughan Foods.
But co-workers report Nolen had a history of attempting to convert them to the Muslim faith. Law enforcement officials have not yet revealed if this was a contributing factor in Nolen’s termination. In addition, Robin Marsh of KWTV-9 reports that Nolen was “shouting Islamic phrases” while attacking his victims.
It is Nolen himself, however, who provides the best initial evidence that radical Islam in general and ISIS in particular motivated his alleged murder a fellow worker, evidence worth documenting in some detail. Though limited information is currently available, we are able to learn about Nolen in his own words and posted photographs on social media and use these as a basis to understand his beliefs and speculate about his motives.
After his conversion to Islam, Nolen posted on Facebook (under the name Jah’Keem Yisrael) his support for Islamist causes, including images celebrating Osama bin Laden and the attack on the World Trade Center. He also specifically promoted ISIS.

With the resignation of Attorney General Eric Holder, unquestionably the most activist – and most divisive – attorney general in the history of the country, everyone seems fixated on who will replace him, and rightly so. The position of nation’s “top cop” is one of extreme importance. As was witnessed with Mr. Holder’s tenure, a biased, activist and agenda-driven attorney general can tear at the fabric of our society. But while everyone seems pre-occupied with who his successor will be, the possibilities of Mr. Holder’s future is what has some forward-thinking people concerned.

If Pres. Obama is swift of feet – and with Valerie Jarrett as his task-master it is hard to believe that he won’t be, he will see his next nominee for US Attorney General fly through the Senate confirmation process. This will happen courtesy of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s manipulation of the confirmation vote process. Susan Ferrechio writes in The Washington Examiner:

“Democrat changes to the filibuster last year should give President Obama’s attorney general pick a gliding path through the Senate in the lame-duck session.

“Last November, Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid changed Senate rules so that nominations for Cabinet positions and most judicial posts needed only 51 votes, instead of the 60 that had been required. That means the person President Obama nominates to succeed Attorney General Eric Holder will not face a potential Republican filibuster.

“Lawmakers plan to return Nov. 12, and no matter who prevails in the Nov. 4 elections, Democrats will remain in the Senate majority until the end of the year. Democrats control 55 votes, while Republicans make up 45 of the chamber’s lawmakers.”

No doubt, We the People will have to suffer through two more years of an activist Department of Justice, one too pre-occupied with “social justice” to give a second thought to “justice for all” or “blind justice.” Of course, it is hard to imagine a more divisive social justice activist than Eric Holder. Nevertheless, I am sure the man – or woman – who takes the helm at the DoJ will provide adequate protection for the Obama Administration, just as Mr. Holder did.

The Obama narrative collapses
Several sophisticated polling analysts, including Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com and Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium are hinting that Republican prospects for the fall ‎midterm U.S. congressional elections are improving. This is occurring despite significant advantages ‎in money raised and spent by Democratic candidates and the various campaign ‎organizations that support their candidates as compared to Republican ‎candidates and their support organizations. ‎

One key issue that seems to have bolstered Republican prospects is the collapse of ‎support for the president’s immigration reform proposal or proposed executive ‎action on immigration. President Barack Obama promised various lobbying groups for ‎immigration reform that he would take action independent of Congress, as he has ‎in so many other areas, including allowing 5 million to 6 million illegal immigrants (about ‎half the total number in the country) to remain in the United States, without fear of ‎prosecution or deportation, and with the ability to work legally. While presidents ‎have some discretion in implementation of laws passed by Congress, the proposed ‎changes made even Democrats nervous, enough so that the president decided he ‎would delay his action until after the November elections. Why get voters even ‎angrier at him, so that even more Democratic candidates for House and Senate ‎seats go down to defeat? ‎

The president has always been far more concerned with electoral politics than ‎immigration reform itself (never introducing the subject in his first term in office) ‎and when Congress did not act, the president showed his disdain for the ‎constitution’s separation of powers with his promised executive action. It is ‎supposed to be Congress that legislates, the president who executes the law ‎‎(and gets to approve or veto acts of Congress), and the Supreme Court that ‎interprets the consistency of law or executive actions with the constitution.

The second key policy issue on which the bottom has fallen out from under the ‎president is his management of foreign affairs. The two subjects are in fact related ‎for many Americans.

Obama’s current approval scores are at the lowest levels of his presidency. But rather than reflect on why he has lost the support of the majority ‎of the American population, the president seems committed to doubling down in ‎his last years in office — convinced that his way, as always, is the only

Chris McDaniel (R) Challenger Tea Party Activist
https://mcdaniel2014.com/

HOT BUTTON ISSUES

HEALTHCARE
Obamacare is a train wreck and must be repealed immediately. Chris was a leading opponent of Obamcare in Mississippi, volunteering his free time as lead counsel in a suit against Obamacare. As a state senator, Chris also opposed Obamacare’s massive expansion of Medicaid that would have bankrupted Mississippi and subjected the state to increased government mandates.
Chris supported conservative senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee in their effort to defund Obamacare and believes we must do whatever it takes to repeal Obamacare and save the American people from the increased costs, lost jobs and loss of privacy that Obamacare will bring.
He supports efforts to replace Obamacare with commonsense health care reforms that lower health care costs, increase choice for consumers, and protect our individual liberties. These reforms include enacting tort reform to limit the skyrocketing cost of defensive medicine, allowing individuals to receive the same tax benefits for their health insurance as employee-provided insurance, encouraging health savings accounts, and allowing people to buy health insurance across state lines.

REGULATIONS AND THE EPA
Government has grown too big, meddling in almost every aspect of our daily lives. Whether it is the EPA telling our farmers how to run their farms or new rules dictating what kind of light bulbs we can use, government regulation is destroying jobs and impinging on our most basic liberties.
It is time to reduce the size of government and the power granted to massive government agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency. As a state senator, Chris sponsored legislation designed to give owners of small businesses more say about state regulations that could affect their livelihoods. As a U.S. senator, Chris will oppose increased government regulation and will seek to repeal the most egregious regulations currently on the books.

IMMIGRATION
Chris believes America is the greatest country on earth and we should welcome those who want to partake in the American Dream. But this dream is made possible by our country’s long-standing respect for the rule of law and basic fairness. Amnesty rewards those who willfully break American laws and unfairly penalizes those who follow the rules and wait their turn to enter this great country.
Chris opposes amnesty and believes we most enforce the laws on the books and secure our border first and foremost. As a state senator, Chris introduced the Employment Protection Act to require all companies to use the Internet-based system to check the legal status of potential employees. This legislation was passed and signed into law.

ENERGY
Implementing a domestic energy policy that uses our natural resources in a responsible way will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, reduce the cost of energy, and increase jobs here at home.
Chris supports increasing offshore drilling and opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to exploration and drilling. He is a strong proponent of building the keystone pipeline and will oppose government funding for inefficient sources of energy like ethanol and solar energy. Government should not pick winners and losers and force American taxpayers to subsidize more expensive forms of energy. Instead, government should get out of the way and allow consumers to choose the fuel sources that best meet their needs.

Both authorities in More, Oklahoma, and legions of social media watchers have been busy ferreting out information on the man accused of stabbing and beheading Colleen Hufford, a 54-year-old grandmother, at a food distribution warehouse.

The picture that is emerging of Alton Noel, who took the Islamic name Jah’Keem Yisrael, is of a violent criminal with no history of mental illness, who converted to Islam in prison and wished to bring Sharia law to America.

The American Thinker’s Jeannie DeAngelis looked at Yisrael’s Facebook page:

Judging from things he says on his Facebook page, Jah’Keem Yisrael was raised in a Christian home where, while getting ready to go to church, his mama sang along with the O’Jays to “Stairway to Heaven” (no, not that “Stairway to Heaven”).

Since coming out of prison, he spent his time offering Dawah to kids in Old Navy t-shirts and proselytizing on behalf of Islam while working at Vaughan Foods.

Nolen’s Facebook rants include preaching against non-Muslims, especially Jews, and features gun-toting Taliban fighters as his cover photo and a picture justifying beheading infidels, complete with a severed head. In addition, Jah’Keem lauds Osama Bin Laden, displays the smoking Twin Towers, and has numerous photos starring himself as was a proud member of the Islamic Mosque community in Oklahoma City.

According to Breitbart, that Oklahoma City mosque attended by Yisrael had connections to terrorist imam Anwar al-Awlaki, a former leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula:

Suhaib Webb, an Imam with ties to former Al Qaeda mastermind Anwar al-Awlaki, had also previously been the leader of the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City, which had been attended by Alton Nolen — the man who on Thursday beheaded a former coworker after recently converting to Islam, Breitbart News has learned. Webb now serves as Imam of the sister organization of the mosque attended by Boston Marathon bombers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev.

Imam Suhaib Webb has a history of ties to radicalism. FBI surveillance documents found that he was a known confidant of Al Qaeda mastermind Anwar al-Awlaki. Just two days before the September 11, 2001 attacks on America, Webb spoke at a fundraiser with Awlaki with hopes to raise funds for Atlanta-based H. Rap Brown, a man that shot and killed two police officers. The FBI documents also found that “Webb and Awlaki may be associated with the Muslim American Society,” which is a group described by the Investigative Project on Terrorism as being “founded as the United States Chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

McDaniel was subjected to the sewer politics of the “good old boys” Republicans- Thad Cochran and sleazy former Governor Haley Barbour…he deserves a day in court and victory….rsk

Chris McDaniel might have lost the Republican U.S. Senate primary in Mississippi. However, he will have his own day in court.

The Mississippi Supreme Court granted the state senator’s request for an expedited hearing and it will hear oral arguments with the entire panel of judges on Oct. 2.

“Activist judges have been a problem in Mississippi since the 1950s, as we saw with the Kellum decision, which, contrary to statute, imposed the 20-day deadline onto congressional and statewide elections,” McDaniel spokesman Noel Fritsch said in a campaign news release.

According to Mississippi Public Broadcasting, the 1959 Mississippi Supreme Court case Kellum v. Johnson says that election challenges should be filed within 20 days of an election.

“Since the statutes are silent on anything regarding a 20-day deadline, any approval of such a deadline by the court without legislative approval would be judicial activism.”

McDaniel filed his challenge before the state Supreme Court on Sept. 18 and Cochran’s lawyers had until the next Wednesday to file their responses, according to the Clarion-Ledger.

The ballots for the Nov. 4 general election already have Cochran, the Republican nominee, facing Democratic nominee Travis Childers. Absentee voting began Sept. 27.

The Senate Conservatives Fund plans to file a brief and join in oral arguments in support of McDaniel’s challenge.

According to the Sun-Herald, the brief asks the court not to implement the Kellum decision.

They’re not the only one joining in, as the Conservative Action Fund has been able to file a brief supporting McDaniel.

Reason 1: You get your politics from Lena Dunham

If you would like to be filled with despair for the prospects of democracy, spend a few minutes attempting to decipher the psephological musings of Lena Dunham, the distinctly unappealing actress commissioned by Planned Parenthood to share with her presumably illiterate following “5 Reasons Why I Vote (and You Should, Too).” That’s 21st-century U.S. politics in miniature: a half-assed listicle penned by a half-bright celebrity and published by a gang of abortion profiteers.

It is an excellent fit, if you think about it: Our national commitment to permanent, asinine, incontinent juvenility, which results in, among other things, a million or so abortions a year, is not entirely unrelated to the cultural debasement that is the only possible explanation for the career of Lena Dunham. A people mature enough to manage the relationship between procreative input and procreative output without recourse to the surgical dismemberment of living human organisms probably would not find much of interest in the work of Miss Dunham. But we are a nation of adult children so horrified by the prospect of actual children that we put one in five of them to death for such excellent reasons as the desire to fit nicely into a prom dress.

It’s not for nothing that, on the precipice of 30, Miss Dunham is famous for a television series called Girls rather than one called Women. She might have gone one better and called it Thumbsuckers. (The more appropriate title Diapers would terrify her demographic.)

Miss Dunham, reflecting celebrity culture at large, makes a fetish of voting, and it is easy to see why: Voting is the most shallow gesture of citizenship there is, the issuance of a demand — a statement that “this is how the world should be,” as Miss Dunham puts it — imposing nothing in the way of reciprocal responsibility. Power without responsibility — Stanley Baldwin would not have been surprised that Miss Dunham and likeminded celebrities think of voting in terms of their sex lives. Miss Dunham, in an earlier endorsement of Barack Obama, compared voting in the presidential election to losing one’s virginity — you want it to be someone special. Understood that way, voting is nothing other than a reiteration of the original infantile demand: “I Want!”

As a procedure for sorting out complex policy issues, voting is of distinctly limited value: If you wanted to know whether the compressive strength of a particular material were sufficient to support a bridge over Interstate 20, you would not go about solving that problem by bundling that question with 10,000 other equally precise and complex but largely unrelated questions, presenting the bundle of questions to the least-informed few million people you could identify, and then proceeding with whatever solution 50 percent +1 of them preferred. That would be a bad way to build a bridge — a homicidal way, in fact — and though it is a necessary instrument of accountability in a democratic republic, voting properly plays a very limited role. For instance, we have a Bill of Rights, which could with equal accuracy be called the List of Stuff You Idiots Can’t Be Trusted To Vote On. A majority of Americans don’t like free speech? Too bad, Harry Reid.

In his recent address to the U.N. General Assembly, President Barack Obama denounced Islamic radicalism, and, in the same breath, praised Palestinian statehood. In these oddly contradictory remarks, he then added that too many Israelis are ready to abandon peace. “And that’s something,” he warned further, “worthy of reflection within Israel.”

This seeming afterthought was gratuitous, and way off the mark. Most Israelis are substantially more aware than Obama of the evident similarities and connections between the Islamic State group, al-Qaida, Fatah and Hamas. Unlike the American president, they also understand that a future Palestinian state – any Palestinian state – would quickly become just another institutionalized national source of worldwide terror and jihad. Unlike him, these Israelis can easily recognize the absurd irony of opposing a jihadi Islamic State group, while simultaneously endorsing a jihadi “Palestine.”

At some point, perhaps, at least after they are finally able to stop abducting and murdering each other, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas will proceed to advance a joint plan for establishing Palestinian sovereignty in the West Bank (Judea/Samaria), Gaza and East Jerusalem. This announcement, while plainly contrary to certain codified expectations of the Palestinian Authority’s Oslo Agreement obligations to Israel, would nonetheless promptly elicit the enthusiastic support of Obama. Such support, moreover, would severely undermine authoritative international law at several different and important levels. Most obvious, in this jurisprudential regard, would be its consequential indifference to the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, a core document in force since 1934, which remains the governing treaty on statehood under international law, and which stipulates, precisely, certain fixed and indispensable criteria of legal sovereignty.

On Nov. 29, 2012, the General Assembly voted to upgrade the Palestinian Authority to the status of a “nonmember observer state.” This was not, in any fashion, a bestowal of sovereignty or “full legal personality.” Historically, the president ought to be reminded, there has never ever been a state of Palestine, nor was such a state created by the U.N. in 2012 or at any other time.

No, this did not happen ‘a long time ago, in a galaxy far-far away’. It happened in the Hawaiian archipelago; and it all started towards the end of the 19th century.

Brought as natural pest exterminators, the mongooses soon proved to be just another pest.
Brought as natural rat exterminators, the mongooses soon proved to be just another pest…

At the time, Caribbean plantation owners were tired of their relentless war against field rats – the rodents were eating into their precious sugar cane crops. Come 1872, a chap called W.B. Espaut had an original idea: why not bring over a few Indian mongooses – those unpretentious mammals known as enthusiastic rat hunters? Espaut travelled to India, had some mongooses captured and brought them to Jamaica. Proud of his achievement, the fellow even wrote a journal article, praising the mongoose as the best thing since sliced bread. The carnivorous mammals had, it seems, multiplied and prospered. They ate lots of rats, but also, explained Espaut with satisfaction,

“snakes, lizards, crabs, toads and the grubs of many beetles and caterpillars have been destroyed.”

This unreserved praise grabbed the attention of Hawaiian sugar cane planters, who also suffered from the rats. Bringing mongooses to Hawaii as natural pest exterminators seemed such an elegant idea. True, around 1883 some wise Hawaiian farmer wrote a letter to the ‘Planters Monthly’, urging caution:

“Whether it would be wise to introduce the animal to these Islands may be a question. It would be important to first learn more of the nature of the creature, for they may prove an evil.”

But who listens to such prophecies of doom? Why work hard to hunt or trap the rats, when one could simply let the mongooses do away with them? ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend’. Long live the alliance between man and mongoose!

…while the rats continued to multiply and prosper.
…while the rats continued to multiply and prosper.

The problem – it soon turned out – was that the mongooses did not just kill rats; they killed birds, ate eggs, insects, useful reptiles, even small deer fawns. True, the mongooses also hunted and killed lots of rats; but they did not kill them all. In fact, the rodents continued to multiply – and so did the mongooses. Worse, both rats and mongooses carry a disease called leptospirosis, which can be lethal to humans. To cut a long story short, rather than getting rid of one pest, the hapless Hawaiians ended up with two. To this day, they still have to use poison and traps – only now they fight both rats and mongooses.
Given his childhood spent in Hawaii, one would expect US President Barack Obama to be familiar with that historic blunder. Which would be useful, because there’s an important lesson to be learned from it.

Breaking news: terrorists kill people!After playing ‘useful idiots’ to Islamist propaganda emanating from Gaza, Western politicians and mainstream ‘journalists’ were suddenly sent into a frenzy by a gruesome video showing yet another jihadist ‘executing’ an American hostage – who happened to be a journalist himself. Leaving aside the ‘execution method’ (which is nothing new either, beheading is being practiced on a large scale by the ‘Western-friendly’ Saudi monarchy), what’s the surprise here? Breaking news, folks: from Munich 1972 to Karachi 2002 to Gaza 2014, that’s what terrorists do: they kidnap and murder people, in order to generate terror. That’s why they’re called terrorists (by persons equipped with moral compass; confused and confusing media outlets such as the BBC call them ‘militants’ – as if they marched in protests and chanted slogans, rather than slaughtering innocent people).

Terrorist holding hostage Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics “Ap munich905 t” by Russell McPhedran – © 1972 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. Licensed under Fair use of copyrighted material in the context of Munich massacre via Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap_munich905_t.jpg#mediaviewer/File:Ap_munich905_t.jpg
Terrorist holding hostage Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. All 11 hostages were killed.
(“Ap munich905 t” by Russell McPhedran – © 1972 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. Licensed under Fair use of copyrighted material in the context of Munich massacre via Wikipedia)

In that particular video, the executioner happened to sport a British accent. Well, surely it should not come as a surprise to anyone (not after 7/7, the murder of Lee Rigby, etc. etc. etc.) that the ranks of the terrorists include Western jihadis. Across Europe, hundreds of young Muslims (born and bred in the democratic West) are joining ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra and other terrorist outfits. MI5 thinks they constitute 10% of the foreign ‘fighters’ in Syria and Iraq.
It’s not the poverty

Hamas terrorists ‘execute collaborators’ in Gaza City (photo: Fox News, free to use & share, even commercially)
Hamas terrorists ‘execute collaborators’ in Gaza City (photo: Fox News, free to use & share, even commercially)

But for some ‘journalists’, this does not change the pre-conceived script. Or rather, the script dictated by their own blind and rigid ideological line – so blind and rigid that it looms completely opaque between their cognisance and the reality in front of their very eyes. That ideological line, a nauseating mixture of neo-Marxism and crypto-racism (I call it Marxist racism), asserts that misbehaviour is simply generated by socio-economic factors; and – in the mind of these neo-Marxist-racists – if one is not ‘white British’, one is by definition poor and frustrated.
Take, for instance, a certain Anna Holligan, employed – surprise-surprise! – by good ol’ BBC. Just a few days ago, she wrote about concerns in the Netherlands:

More than 100 Dutch citizens are thought to be fighting for various groups in Syria and Iraq, and hundreds more have been identified as potential jihadists.

These are the facts. But then comes the analysis. The ideology-tainted ‘analysis’:

Many young Muslims are struggling to find work and acceptance in the Netherlands, he tells me. The promise of a glorified existence extolled by radical preachers resonates with the vulnerable and disaffected. While there is little appetite for the bloodthirsty approach espoused by Islamic State militants, the idea of going to defend fellow Muslims appears to be compelling for some young people who lack hope at home but see potential abroad.