Wednesday, August 29, 2007


When it comes to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms – to accept personal responsibility to defend home and family – the media is a long way from fair and balanced,

It Feeds Flat Out Lies To The Public…

By de Andréa

During the first seven months of 2007, the media waged an intermittent war against the Second Amendment, using a variety of fallacious arguments to make the pitch for gun bans and the future demise of a free America.

A crime wave in the big cities, followed by the Virginia Tech tragedy in April, gave the media what they thought was plenty of ammunition for attacking the right to bear arms. The three major broadcast networks ran at least 650 stories on gun homicides from January through July. In a manner reminiscent of Michael Moore, journalists sprinkled post-Virginia Tech news coverage with comparisons between the United States and other countries that have stricter gun control laws and less crime.

The media first broached the urban crime wave immediately following a March 9 court decision, Parker v. District of Columbia, which struck down the D C handgun ban. ABC, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and USA Today each ran at least one story on the DC crime wave between March 9 and March 29.

On the March 10 NBC Nightly News, anchor John Seigenthaler tried to link the crime wave and the decision. “A new study of major cities shows an alarming rise in violence … This comes on the heels of a federal court decision striking down a 31 year old gun ban law in Washington, D.C., on the grounds that it violated the constitutional right to bear arms.” What Seigenthaler failed to mention is that the D.C. gun ban was still in effect while the crime wave was taking place.

CBS failed to report that police chiefs who support gun control are in the minority. A 2005 survey by the National Association of Chiefs of Police found that 93.6 percent of chiefs and sheriffs support “civilian gun ownership rights,” and 63.1 percent claimed that concealed-weapons permits reduce violent crime. Not surprisingly, the same survey reports that 93.2 percent say the news media is “not fair and balanced in this regard, and in fact lies about it.”

The Virginia Tech shootings on April 16 encouraged the media to accelerate massively their campaign against the Second Amendment. Journalists would eventually demonstrate their willingness to smear their own country in order to promote gun control.

Just as Michael Moore, in his movie Sicko, excoriated America’s private healthcare system by inaccurately comparing it to socialized medicine in other countries, journalists blasted America’s constitutional right to bear arms by pointing to countries that have stricter gun laws and less crime. What the media fails to point out is the fact that these countries are also run by a socialist dictatorship.

The embattled university, Keteyian asserted, has desperately fought Virginia’s “hunting culture” in order to “safeguard the student population.” even though it has obviously had the opposite effect.

NBC anchor Brian Williams’s heaped praise on Britain’s gun ban on the April 17 Nightly News: “Britain outlawed handguns, and anyone caught with one faces a minimum prison sentence of five years. They are so opposed to guns here that not even police officers on routine patrol carry them. Now gun violence is rare.” Williams not only ignored several salient facts: such as by tradition, British “bobbies” have rarely carried firearms; moreover Brian Williams flatly lied about the decrease in Britain’s crime rate since the gun ban... (see information from Britain showing that the opposite is true) The UK experienced more than a 40% increase in gun violence the 2 years following the National gun ban. Moreover, Britain now has a growing problem with knife violence. Other nations where gun ownership is common enjoy low rates of gun violence. For example, Switzerland, which has very low crime rates, actually issues assault rifles to all adult males for citizen’s militia service.

Two days after the Virginia Tech massacre, the Washington Post was also taking lines from the Michael Moore playbook, attacking not only the Second Amendment, but also American foreign policy. Nations around the world reported the Post, “used the university attack to condemn what they depicted as U.S. policies to arm friends, attack enemies and rely on violence rather than dialogue to settle disputes.”

The New York Times took aim at a target closer to home. “It is the gun lobby’s incessant efforts to weaken the gun laws that make a tragedy like the one at Virginia Tech possible,” screeched the Gray Lady in an April 26 editorial.

The Media’s Omissions
In their zeal to repeal the Second Amendment, the media failed to inform their audience of at least four powerful arguments against gun control.

Comparisons between countries are not useful. Unfortunately, direct comparisons between countries based solely on crime rates and gun laws tell very little about whether gun control actually works. Social scientists believe that gun control is only one of many factors that influence rates of violence. The National Academy of Sciences cautioned in a 2004 report, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, that, “It is difficult to gauge the value of [gun control] measures because social and economic factors behind criminal acts are often complex and interwoven, and the efforts are narrow in scope.”

As Brian Williams compared the U.S. and Britain to promote gun control, a pro-gun analyst could easily cherry pick countries to “prove” that gun control does not work. New Zealand, with very limited gun restrictions, has an annual gun homicide rate of 0.18 per 100,000 population. While South Africa, where the Firearm Control Act of 2000 licenses firearms to virtually no one, has a rate of 7457 per 100,000.

A 1998 Library of Congress report concluded, “From available statistics, among 27 countries surveyed, it is impossible to find a correlation between the existence of strict firearms regulations and a lower incidence of gun-related crimes.”

Guns are frequently used to stop crimes. Between January 1 and August 1, the media completely failed to report on an issue most relevant to the Second Amendment debate, the legitimate use of guns in self-defense. To the Founding Fathers, the right to bear arms for self-protection was essential if citizens were to be truly free. Alexander Hamilton addressed the “original right of self defense” in Federalist 28. Under a “confederacy” that protects the right to bear arms, wrote Hamilton, “the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate.” In other words, to have the ability to accept responsibility for defending themselves, rather than having to rely exclusively on the government. Hamilton knew what he was talking about; guns are often used to stop criminals. A survey by the United States Journal of Criminal Law, more than 2.5 million people use a gun in self-defense each year.

This essential fact never saw the light of day in the mainstream media. From January through July, armed self defense almost never made it into the news While the three major TV networks broadcast at least 650 stories about gun homicides, CMI was able to find only two stories about guns used by citizens to defend themselves.

John Stossel, anchor of ABC’s 20/20, referred to two cases of armed self-defense on the May 4 show. NBC’s Today show of April 23 featured former Miss America Venus Ramey, 82, who chased an intruder off her property with a shotgun.

The major networks also failed to mention a highly relevant incident, the 2002 shooting at the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Virginia. After killing three people, a gunman was forced to surrender by two armed students.

Virginia Tech, in contrast, did not allow students to be armed, so nobody was able to stop Seung-Hui Cho on that fateful day in Norris Hall.

Most guns used in crimes are illegally acquired. Like it or not, banning guns only takes them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, making it easier for people with no respect for the law to attack their victims.

The National Academy of Sciences concluded in its report, Firearms and
Violence, that only 21 percent of the guns used to commit crimes in this country are bought legally.

In some countries with stricter gun control laws, the proportion can drop well below 10 percent. Legally purchased guns are rarely used to commit crimes, but every time a gun ban is passed, responsible citizens lose the capacity to defend themselves and their families.

Gun control laws have no proven effect. At worst, gun control laws leave law-abiding citizens defenseless before rapacious criminals, and at best, they may not affect violence at all.

The Firearms and Violence study surveyed local gun control policies around the nation, including more than 80 education programs designed to prevent violence in children, but could not find any that actually reduced gun violence.

Kleck G, Gertz M. “The illegitimacy of one-sided speculation: getting the defensive gun use estimate down.”

.">Journal of Criminal Law. 1997;87:1446-1461. Quoted. In Kleck, Gary. August 8, 2007. 7 10 percent in Australia, according to the British Journal of Criminology. “Buyback has no effect on murder rate.”

October 24, 2006. Sydney Morning Herald. August 8, 2007. In Germany, with one of the strictest gun policies in the world, the percentage falls to 0.004 percent. “Germany reevaluates gun laws after school shooting.” November 23, 2006. Deutsche Welle. August 8, 2007.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published one of the most comprehensive surveys of gun control laws ever in 2003. The survey looked at bans on firearms, restrictions on firearms, waiting periods and licensing, zero tolerance laws in schools, “GUN FREE ZONES” childhood access prevention laws and combinations of all of these. The result? “The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws

Why does the media repeatedly make the same faulty assumptions and advance the same shopworn arguments for expensive and intrusive gun control policies that have no proven effect on crime, and render law-abiding citizens helpless to defend themselves? In a word, ideology. The argument for gun control has always been based more on utopian visions than empirical facts. That, and the left simply does not trust an armed citizenry.

The media’s incessant attack on the Second Amendment demonstrates clearly their hate America liberal agenda against gun ownership.

Read a Harvard law School Study about more guns less crime.

Read what John Lott says about More Guns Not Less

THE BOTTOM LINE: I am going to try to be kind now by saying that no one could be so ignorant as to really believe that America would be better off with a British or Australian type gun ban. One does not even need to go to other countries to see the disastrous results of gun bans, Washington DC has had a virtual gun ban for over 30 years and since then DC’s violent crime rate has gone up and up, making Washington DC the Murder Capital of The USA. While at the same time, the overall murder rate for the US has been in decline.

No, the Issue it is not ignorance or even crime, it is an agenda of the far liberal left to achieve ultimate power and control, and total dependence on government agency’s. This socialist utopia talks good, but it does not walk straight. In all of history, one has never been able to depend on government for anything. Therefore the old saying “there’s never a cop when you need one”. Our freedom was not even acquired by the government; it was a bunch of rag tag farmers with guns that defeated the most powerful military in the world and won our freedom. It was the citizen’s militia then, and it is the citizen’s militia now, as the second Amendment says: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

de Andréa

Tuesday, August 28, 2007



Former Trotskyist and author Irving Kristol once said, “A conservative is a liberal, who has been mugged by reality.”

By de Andrea

That certainly seems to be the case with former anti-gun advocate Michael DeBose, an Ohio state legislator who has supported gun- control in the past.

Michael DeBose’s epiphany was not a result of being mugged by reality, but in reality being mugged by a couple of criminal gun-toting thugs in his own neighborhood.DeBose said that he was taking a walk around his quiet residential neighborhood on the evening of May 1, 2007 when two men accosted him, one of whom was armed with a handgun.

The unarmed DeBose took the only option available to him, and what all good liberals do well, he ran.

He found himself at the door of a neighbor’s home and while at the door, the hoodlums, apparently worried that DeBose’s yelling and pounding would attract witnesses, jumped in their car and drove away.

DeBose, an anti-gun legislator and a long time advocate of stricter gun-control laws, along with his wife and several of his neighbors, have since enrolled in classes to obtain concealed-carry permits.

“If I’d had a weapon I could have defended myself, I don’t ever what to find myself in a helpless situation like that again,” said DeBose who is also an ordained Baptist minister.

DeBose’s apparent conversion has not faired well with his anti-gun colleagues, but as he said, “until someone has had a gun pulled on them and stuck in their face, (you just can’t) put yourself in another’s place. . . . I just hope they’ll understand why I chose to change my mind.”

One would think that an eye opening experience like this would tend to shake up the nuts a bolts of self-preservation just a little, but unfortunately, it usually does not. It has been my experience that even if someone like Michael DeBose has had an experience such as this, as in the case of the Mayor Fenty of Washington D.C. who was robbed at gun point in his own home, it rarely changes ones perception of reality. One would usually have to be shot or at least shot at, in order to be shaken awake. Maybe it is the sound of the explosion that wakes them up; it is hard to know.

It seems that once someone has been programmed with the ability to shed responsibility like water off your freshly waxed Mini Cooper, then one will always look for some object to blame rather than place responsibility squarely where it belongs, in the minds of humanity.

THE BOTTOM LINE: People have the right to defend themselves and their loved ones. In a free society, the government does not have the right to prevent them from doing so. If even the most basic right of life and self-defense can be irresponsibly legislated away, it makes one wonder if we really still have rights, or have our rights just become insecure privileges?

The lesson here could be either THE MAKING OF A COUNTRY or the demise of one.

Think about it…

de Andréa

Monday, August 27, 2007

Worshipping God Could be Dangerous

Another Example of a "Gun Free Zone"

By de Andréa

What would you say about someone walking down the street carrying a sign that read, I have 100,000 dollars worth of diamonds in my left pocket and I am unarmed.

I don’t know about you but I would say at the very least, that this sign carrying, diamond toting person was asking for trouble. One would think what a stupid and ignorant thing to do. This person would be advertising the fact that he was helpless in the face of an attack, as well as giving someone a reason to attack.

Not only that, after the police investigation of the robbery… Can you just imagine the CSI scratching their heads when they read the sign???

Yet this is exactly what we do when we advertise that our schools have valuable little jewels in them and they are not armed. They are “GUN FREE ZONES’.

Our Commercial Airplanes are “GUN FREE ZONES” Think about it, 9/11 would never have happened if the passengers had been armed.

Moreover, there are places that do not necessarily advertise that they are gun free, but usually are. One of those places are Churches.

A gunman opened fire in the sanctuary of a southwest Missouri American church, Sunday Aug. 12, 2007, killing the pastor, two worshippers and wounding several others. The Church was of course, a “GUN FREE ZONE”

This abominable act is not the first time that churchgoers have been attacked while worshipping their Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, it happens all over the world, and more often in the U.S. than you think.

In 2004, one of the most dreadful campaigns of mass murder was unleashed upon the Tutsi people of Rwanda. In just 100 days more people were slaughtered, many of them in churches, than have died from atomic weapons in all of history.

Dr Peter Hammond's book "Holocaust in Rwanda" documents how a gun control government, media manipulation, liberal church leaders and the U.N. played a role in making this disaster possible.

It was a typical winter's evening in Cape Town, dark and dismal. The St. James Church was not as full as it usually was. There were slightly fewer than the approximately 1,500 worshippers it normally held, which was probably due to the cold and rain.

Two young members of the congregation stood up and ministered in song, when a scuffle at the front door, to the left of the stage, drew our attention.

A chaotic scene unfolded. Grenades were exploding in flashes of light. Pews shattered under the blasts, sending splinters flying through the air. An automatic rifle was being fired and was fast ripping the pews – and whoever, whatever was in its trajectory – to pieces.

One man in the congregation with a gun knelt down behind the bench in front of him and pulled out his .38 Special snub-nosed revolver, which he always carried with him.

The congregation had thrown themselves down – in order to protect themselves as far as possible from the deluge of flying bullets and shrapnel. By God's grace, the view of the terrorists from his seat, fourth row from the back of the church, was perfect. The construction of the building was like a cinema, with the floor sloping towards the stage in front. Without any hesitation, he knelt and aimed, firing two shots at the attackers. This appeared ineffective, as his position was too far from the targets to take precise aim with a small snub-nosed revolver; he had to get closer to the terrorists.

He started moving to the end of the pew on his haunches and leopard-crawled the rest of the way, when he realized that his position was too high up. The only way he could stop their vicious attack, was to try to move in behind them and then shoot them in the back at close range.

He sprinted to the back door of the church, pushing a woman out of the way, so that he could kick the door open as he sought to get behind the gunmen to neutralize their attack. As he desperately rounded the corner of the building, outside in the parking area, he saw a man standing next to what was the "getaway" car. Resting on his hip was his automatic rifle. The man was looking in the direction of the door through which they had launched their attack.

He stepped back behind the corner of the wall and prepared to blast the last of his firepower. He strode out in full view of the terrorist and shot his last three rounds. By this time, the others were already in the car. His target jumped into the vehicle and the driver sped away immediately, leaving behind the acrid stench of burning tires and exhaust fumes.

All he had managed to do was to scare them off, if he had not it probably would have been worse. No one else in the church was armed.
He ran across the road to the house of a neighbor and jumped over the fence. Knocking on the door, and shouted, "Call the police, there's been an attack!"

Eleven helpless people were murdered and 53 injured that evening.

THE BOTTOM LINE: This kind of thuggery usually takes place among unarmed people, such as schools and churches. When last did you hear of multiple victim shootings taking place in police stations, on firearm ranges or at gun shows anywhere in the world? No, homicidal maniacs are cowards, preferring unarmed victims, i.e., usually soft targets in "GUN FREE ZONES".

“…And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one.” Jesus talking to his decuples about their own persecution regarding their defence just before his arrest and death. Luke 22, vs 36b RSV.

de Andréa

Sunday, August 26, 2007

Self-defence is a right, not a wrong…

Self-defence is a right, not a wrong…
Even in New Zealand.

Law enforcement is attracting increasing criticism each time they investigate a citizen's armed response to a crime.

By de Andréa

A Morrinsville New Zealand farmer fired two shotgun blasts into the air to subdue two suspected petrol thieves, whom he forced to lie down until police arrived. Police are reported to be considering laying charges against the farmer. The farmer should be thankful that he does not live in the U.K or even in the U.S. where he would likely spend sometime in jail while the perp's go free and then with the aid of the government the perp's could sue the farmer for sociological damage or some such nonsense.

The court of public opinion cannot be allowed to determine guilt or innocence. Each case has to be examined objectively to determine whether a defender's response has been appropriate. While summary justice might appeal, vigilantism merely adds one kind of lawlessness to another so say the Morrinsville police.

Nevertheless, the public has good reason to suspect the worst when a victim is being investigated and subsequently arrested after taking action to defend his life and or his property.
Seared into recent memory are the two failed prosecutions of a Northland farmer Paul McIntyre, who shot a thief on his property in October 2002.

Mr. McIntyre was acquitted in the Kaikohe District Court, first on a charge of shooting and injuring a man with reckless disregard for the safety of others, then, of discharging a shotgun without reasonable cause in a manner likely to endanger the safety of others. The cost of defending the prosecutions brought him to financial ruin in a case that provoked widespread sympathy, as well as deep indignation.

More recently was the unsuccessful prosecution of an Auckland gun-shop owner, Greg Carvell. Eleven months previously, he shot a machete-wielding intruder who had demanded guns and threatened his staff. Two JPs threw out the case that had caused a judge sentencing the intruder to wonder at the fact that Mr. Carvell had defended himself only to be charged by police.

Wise counsel says anyone faced with an intruder should lie low and call the police. For country folk, isolated and often far from help, reality dictates they must act themselves if criminals are to be defeated.

While police fear that a tolerance of armed responses could lead to escalation, with the likelihood that thieves, will routinely arm themselves for potential shoot-outs, the opposite has proved to be true in the U.S. When citizens are armed, criminals fear that potential victims may shoot them, and go elsewhere. Farmers and other vulnerable folk rightly insist that their security comes first. Many resent the fact that the advice to "do nothing" is in fact, government-imposed helplessness.

One of the points that I find interesting is that the police define self-defense as vigilantism. Obviously, the police are not aware that self-defence is a natural law and therefore is not outside of the law as it can be in the case of vigilantism.

As far as armed responses leading to escalation of criminal attacks with guns, the stats show that the opposite is true, with criminals going where citizens are not likely to be armed.

The first duty of the state is to protect its citizens, their families and their property from violence. If it cannot, then at least it should acknowledge the entitlement of every citizen to fight back in his or her own defence.

When police respond to a citizen's armed defence by raising the prospect of charges, they offend a sense of natural justice and increase public suspicion that again, it is the victim who gets the worse deal. Consider the case of farmer Tony Martin in the U.K. or as in the case of officers Ramos and Compean two U.S. Border Guards.

If a person defending his property, life or country is in such grave risk of prosecution for breaking the law, it implies a moral equivalence that considers him as bad as the thieves, rapists and murderers who come calling.

Rightly or wrongly, the public perceives such police arrests as enthusiasm by the coercive arm of the state to punish citizens for its own failures. Moreover, when the court system takes over, it ignores the further injustices that are created by the testing of a legal principle. All of which does little to maintain respect for either the police or for the courts.

THE BOTTOM LINE: It simply amazes me that government and law enforcement have such a difficult time recognizing the difference between the good guys and the bad guys. When I was young I identified them by what color hat they were wearing, but I have grown up sense then.

There has to be a more realistic way of evaluating a decision of forceful defence. A good way to start would be to recognize the natural right of every person to defend his or her own life, instead of making him or her, victims of injustice as well as victims of a crime.

“Police, unlike God, are not omni present. God, unlike police, expect people to exercise a certain amount of personal responsibility”.

de Andréa.

Saturday, August 25, 2007

"Moses and Jesus were really prophets of Islam"

Chief Muslim claims Jewish Temples never existed, and Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem was built by angels

By de Andréa

Source-Jerusalem Post: The Jewish Temples never existed, the Western Wall, the last remaining part of the last Jewish temple, was really a tying post for Muhammad's horse, the Al Aqsa Mosque was built by angels, and Abraham, Moses, and Jesus were prophets for Islam.

So says Sheikh Taysir Tamimi, chief Palestinian Justice and one of the most influential Muslim leaders in Israel. Tamimi is considered the second most important Palestinian cleric after Muhammad Hussein, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

Tamimi, who preaches regularly from the Al Aqsa Mosque, claimed Jews have no historical connection to Jerusalem or Israel and that the Jewish Temples never existed.
He claims "Israel started since 1967 making archeological digs to show Jewish signs to prove the relationship between Judaism and the city and they found nothing. There is no Jewish connection to Israel before the Jews invaded in the 1880's".

The Palestinian cleric denied the validity of dozens of archeological digs verified by experts worldwide revealing Jewish artifacts from the First and Second Temples throughout Jerusalem, including on the Temple Mount itself; excavations revealing Jewish homes and a synagogue in a site in Jerusalem called the City of David; or even the recent discovery of a Second Temple Jewish city in the vicinity of Jerusalem.

He said descriptions of the Jewish Temples in the Hebrew Tanach, in the Talmud and in Byzantine and Roman writings from the Temple periods were forged, and that the Torah was falsified to claim Biblical patriarchs and matriarchs were Jewish when indeed they were prophets for Islam. "All this is not real. We don't believe in all your versions. Your Torah was falsified. The text as given to the Muslim prophet Moses never mentions Jerusalem. Maybe Jerusalem was mentioned in the rest of the Torah, which was falsified by the Jews.” He said Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and Jesus were "prophets for the Israelites sent by Allah to usher in Islam."

Asked about the Western Wall, Tamimi said the structure was a tying post for Muhammad's horse and that it is part of the Al Aqsa Mosque, even though the Wall predates the mosque by over 1,000 years. "The Western wall is the western wall of the Al Aqsa Mosque. It's where Prophet Muhammad tied his animal which took him from Mecca to Jerusalem to receive the revelations of Allah.” The Al Aqsa Mosque was constructed in about 709 to serve as a shrine near another shrine called the Dome of the Rock, which was built by an Islamic caliph. Al Aqsa was meant to mark what Muslims came to believe was the place at which Muhammad, the founder of Islam, ascended to heaven to receive revelations from Allah.

The truth is:
Jerusalem is not even mentioned in the Quran. And yet Islamic tradition states Mohammed took a journey in a single night on a horse from "a sacred mosque" – believed to be in Mecca in southern Saudi Arabia – to "the farthest mosque" and from a rock there ascended to heaven. The farthest mosque later became conveniently associated with Jerusalem.

The historical fact is the First Jewish Temple was built by King Solomon in the 10th century B.C. It was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B.C. The Second Temple was rebuilt in 515 B.C. after Jerusalem was freed from Babylonian captivity. That temple was destroyed by the Roman Empire in A.D. 70. Each temple stood for a period of about four centuries; moreover, archeology confirms this fact.

Tamimi went on to claim that the “Al Aqsa Mosque was build by the angels forty years after the building of Al-Haram in Mecca. This we have no doubt is true" said Tamimi

THE BOTTOM LINE: This, in stark contrast to all of documented history, moreover, in the face of all physical proof from accredited archeologists, Islam has the audacity to stick by their own lying version of history, built on assumptions, unsupported beliefs, ignorance, and flat out fabricated lies. What is even more unbelievable is that ignorant people, who include the majority of the world, actually believe this dribble.

The truth is that Palestine never existed in history as the Palestinians claim, moreover, it still does not exist today, except in the minds of the so-called Palestinians, and yet we recognize them. It makes my brain itch…

The entire area was known as Canaan, which predates the nation of Israel. It was the country of Abram the father of the Arabs and the father of Israel later known as Abraham in about 2000 BC. Moreover, at the time of the Exodus of Israel’s captivity in Egypt sometime around 1200 BC, it was occupied by cities such as Jericho and Hazor there were no Palestinians. The last of the Jews were not dispersed from Israel/Judea until about 135 AD. All this occurred long before the Nation of Islam ever existed, since their satanically controlled prophet Muhammad was not even born until 570 AD.

Around the same circa of the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses III, the time of the Israeli Exodus, the Philistines arrived in Canaan in the area known as the Gaza Strip. An area formerly part of Egypt. The Philistines are believed to have come from Anatolia, an area now part of Greece and Turkey. Called the sea people some historians say that they came from the island of Caphtor now known as the island of Crete.

Therefore, in anyone’s history book, one can easily see that nowhere in history does Hamas or the Palestinians have any historical claim to Canaan or any land anywhere in the Middle East or anywhere on planet earth.

The people that occupied the area known as Palestine in the late 1800’s were not actually known as Palestinians. They were a combination of Israelis, Arabs, Jordanian, and Lebanese. They lived in relative peace even after the State of Israel was formed in 1947.

That is until the late 1950’s:
Jordan kicked a bunch of rag tag terrorist out of their country and for the lack of a better place; they went to Lebanon, and called themselves Lebanese. As well as the area known as Palestine, and called themselves Palestinians. They claimed the land that Israel occupied was the historical land of the Palestinians; this was the beginning of the PLO and the occupation by the terrorist organization known as Hamas.

Again, one can see that the Palestinians per-se did not exist prior to the invasion of the Jordanian terrorists. The area is now occupied by a combination of the descendents of regional-Arabs called Bedouins (or in Arabic, Badawi), regional Israelis, immigrated Israelis, some Lebanese refugees, and these Jordanian terrorists, Hamas or Fatah, who conveniently call themselves historical Palestinians. I guess they thought no one would check.

What chaps my hide is that we even recognize these people as anything but what they are, Islamic Demonic Terrorists. I also find it interesting that the Arab people, who were at one time the most advanced nation in mathematics, today cannot even do simple arithmetic. It is, as if all reality stopped for them at the founding of Islam just before 700 AD.

de Andréa

Friday, August 24, 2007

Terrorists Use Mexico to Enter U.S.

Counterterrorism authorities have come to fear that Bush’s porous U.S.-Mexico border provides entry into the United States, not only for illegal aliens, but for Islamic terrorists as well.

de Andrea

In addition, these same Islamic terrorists are also using Mexico as the conduit to bring nuclear devices into the U.S. for a WMD attack. These are among the chilling disclosure from Paul L. Williams, author of the just-released book "The Day of Islam: The Annihilation of America and the Western World."

According to Williams, al-Qaida has already hatched plans to smuggle nuclear materials across the Mexican border and use them for a mammoth simultaneous attack on several large U.S. cities. See previous book report the day of Islam

Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups began infiltrating Mexico in the days after 9/11. By 2003, Canadian intelligence officials and Interpol told Mexican President Vincente Fox that al-Qaida had established several cells in Mexico to prepare for the next terrorist attacks, Williams tells readers.

Meanwhile hundreds of Tzozil Indians in southern Mexico converted to Islam and reportedly became involved in subversive activities. By 2004, al-Qaida cells were in place in northern Mexico and a large cell of Hezbollah was in Tijuana, on the U.S. border of California. The Muslim radicals enlisted the aid of Latino gangs, including Mara Salvatrucha, to help them slip across the border.

According to Williams, the going rate for such service was from $30,000 to $50,000, but it included a bogus matricular consular, an official ID card issued by the Mexican government that enables Mexican nationals in the U.S. to obtain drivers licenses and open bank accounts.

Steve McCraw, assistant director of the FBI's Office of Intelligence, told the House Judiciary Committee in June 2003: "The ability of foreign nationals to use the matricular consular provides an opportunity for terrorists to move freely within the United States without triggering name-based watch lists that are disseminated to local police officials."

Mexico has also become a conduit for aliens from terror-sponsoring states, known as "special-interest aliens," or SIAs. By 2006, a popular entry route from Mexico into Arizona was littered with "discarded Muslim prayer rugs, pages from the Quran, instructions in Arabic on how to cross the Rio Grande, and beverage boxes with Farsi and Arabic letters," writes Williams, a seasoned investigative reporter and former FBI consultant.

Due to a lack of detention facilities, those SIAs that are apprehended — who have numbered in the thousands in recent years — are released from custody after receiving hearing dates from immigration judges. Fewer than 5 percent actually show up for their hearing. The rest simply vanish, so much for home security…

Texas Rep. Solomon Ortiz, a Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee on Readiness, said the release of Middle Easterners with possible links to al-Qaida is "very, very scary and members of Congress know about this."

In April 2004, the FBI arrested al-Qaida operative Mohammed Junaid Babar, after he returned to New York City from a terrorist summit meeting in Pakistan. After making him an offer he could not refuse, he told interrogators that al-Qaida was preparing a nuclear attack on American cities. He also said the terrorists were relying on Latino gangs, most notably Mara Salvatrucha, to transport the operatives, along with nuclear supplies, across the U.S.-Mexican border.

Another captured terrorist later confirmed Babar's account. Moreover, both men said the plot was being directed by Adnan el-Shukrijumah, the man profiled as "the most dangerous person in the Western world."
As a follow up and support for last article titled THE FIXER FROM al-QAIDA, declassified…

FBI Sees 'High Tempo of Terrorist Activity'
The FBI increased its use of secret search warrants last year due to what a top official calls a "high tempo of terrorist activity.”

FBI Assistant Director John Miller said that 2,176 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act search warrants were approved last year, compared with 1,754 granted in 2005. Most of the warrants involved plotters inside America.

"We're seeing a very high tempo of terrorist activity, not just based on the cases you're seeing being brought in the United States," Miller said in an interview with C-SPAN. Miller believes the U.S. may have underestimated top al-Qaida leaders' ability to oversee operations in the U.S. in recent years, the New York Daily News reports.

Al-Qaida is "getting more effective" at planning new strikes while using propaganda to inspire others to "take that ball and run with it," Miller said. "They're better at this than they were before."

THE BOTTOM LINE: The fundamental problem here is that their own political programming has blinded our Administration and or Congress. Moreover, I believe that real Americans can see right through this political veneer of self-righteous elitism.

My hope is that God will direct some able political leader to lead this country in the right direction. Moreover, no matter what political advisors may say about all the tolerant political correctness and personal agendas that are blinding this government, that the mental and spiritual eyes will be open to reality. Moreover, the bonds of our military in a maze of rules of engagement must be removed. This political nonsense only serves the interests of the enemy, and is no way to win a war against the evil agenda of Islam.

de Andréa

Thursday, August 23, 2007


I understand this might be difficult to comprehend for some because of what the U.S. Government is doing or not doing.

Nevertheless, we are at war with our own Congress, and not only that, we are at war with nearly every country in the world, except England, Israel, Japan, Taiwan and possibly Alaska.

By de Andréa

Anywhere in history where a country at war that had absolutely no control over who or what was coming or going in and out of ones country, eventually succumbed to the enemy and lost the war . Moreover if this congress can’t get on the same page as this administration; well all I can say is that a country divided against itself cannot stand.

Not only does America not have any definitive borders, but foreign nationals from any and every country including the Middle East are rooming in and out of the U.S., at will, with virtually no control whatsoever. This is nearly unheard of in history at anytime, but in time of war, it is “Home Land Security” suicide.

Moreover, if our feign Federal border guards attempt to do their job of stopping the illegal entry of anyone including our enemy into this country they have been at the request of the Mexican Government brought up on trumpet up charges and put in jail.
Moreover, at the whim of our enemy the prosecution of our own military for doing their job is becoming commonplace.

These facts are so absurd and absolutely unbelievable especially in time of war, that I sit at my computer with a loss for words to explain this kind of behavior. It is totally unprecedented in history as a purposely engineered war tactic.

I cannot even in my wildest imagination conceive of why an administration of a Free Constitutional Republic such as the United States of America, would with purpose and malfeasances allow the enemy one is at war with not only have free access to ones country, but at the same time is encouraged to infiltrate, not assimilate but infiltrate, this society and Government. Moreover if that is not enough to drive one to drink rubbing alcohol, then how about the fact that your government is supporting terrorists organizations both in the Middle East as well as here in America, and with your tax dollars.

It is one thing to have our neighbor to the south illegally invade our country and dictate to our government what their rights are, but when our enemy, the Nation of Islam is allowed to infiltrate our country, culture and government, and demand rights that even Americans don’t have, what’s more their demands are accommodated. Then I cannot help but wondering how long it is going to be until America has its second revolution or civil war.

In case one doubts the truth of these outrages statements, I have written several previous articles containing documented information still available on my blog, that supports the fact that our administration has sold out to Globalism and is actually supporting terrorists training camps right here in our own country. Moreover, proof that this administration is not the least bit concerned with protecting the unique freedom and liberty of this Republic.

Sharia law, as in Europe, and Nigeria is incrementally replacing our own constitutionally based laws. The Islamic religious theocracy is surreptitiously and incrementally encroaching and outlawing all other religions and philosophies. Our schools and colleges are either bending all their rules or replacing them in order to accommodate the Muslim students. Even private Christian Colleges are giving the boot to Christian organizations on campus in order to cater to the Islamic Sharia rules.

How long can we continue this surreptitious conversion from our Judao Christian foundation and the Constitutional law of this Republic, to Islamic Sharia law, before we realize that America, as in Europe, is becoming an Islamic State. While we are fighting in Congress about who is winning the war in the Middle East we are losing the war here on our home soil.

THE BOTTOM LINE: I feel like my CD is stuck when I have to keep saying that the U.S. government hasn’t a clue who this enemy is. We must first recognize that we are fighting for our survival and our very existence. And then this Congress and this administration must read the enemy’s play book, the philosophy of Islam, found in the Quran, trust me, it’s in there, better yet, get one yourself.

de Andréa

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Threaten To Nuke Mecca To Deter Terror

Tom Tancredo may just be my man in 08.

By de Andrea

Not only does he understand that we must actually have borders to secure the sovereignty of America, but he also understands whom we are at war with, moreover, he understands the only thing the Nation of Islam respects…

Tom Tancredo has been telling Americans that the U.S. should threaten to bomb Mecca if Islamic terrorists successfully detonate a nuclear device in America. Way to go Tom!

In July of 2005, Tancredo said on Fox News, "If this nuclear [terror attack] happens, and if, in fact, we can prove that it was perpetrated by some fundamentalist Islamic - 'Islamo-fascist' (it is really I think what we should call them) - then you might think about this as a threat, the nuclear retaliation on their so-called holy sites.

"We are talking about a situation where our very lives are at stake, not just the life of the United States, but of Western civilization," he insisted.

A week later, Tancredo told WFLA Florida radio host Pat Campbell: "You know; there are things that you could threaten to do before [a terror attack] happens ..."

The Colorado Republican then explained: "What if you said something like: If this happens in the United States and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims - you know, we could take out their holy sites."

Asked if he was talking about bombing Mecca, Tancredo replied: "Yeah."
Moreover, the congressman and presidential candidate is not backing down from these comments. He recently told an audience in Iowa, almost exactly two years later, that as president he would advocate the very same position.

"If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina," the GOP presidential candidate said, according to Iowa "That is the only thing I can think of that might deter Islam from doing what they would otherwise do.

"If I am wrong fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent or you will find an attack. There is no other way around it. There has to be negative consequences for the actions they take. That's the most negative action I can think of."
He further warned: "The president and this country better figure out exactly what it can do to deter, I underline deter, the next attack. "Deter, not just respond, deter, or else I assure you, we are going to suffer. The extent of which of course I do not know. I know what they are planning and I know what they want. I do not know if they are going to be capable of doing this tomorrow, the next day, or a month from now. I know right now at this moment we have nothing that deters them."

THE BOTTOM LINE: So far this is the only “Presidential Candidate” that shows that he is cognoscente of what needs to be done if a free America is going to survive. Generally, I am coming to believe that the Congress as well as the Administration underestimates this enemy, in part because they do not even know who the enemy is, any more than the Roosevelt Administration new who the Nazis were in the 1930’s

If the citizenry of the United States doesn’t elect a president who is willing to pull out all the stops and bury the new traditions of multicultural political correctness and tolerance for an enemy that Tom Tancredo knows is bent on destroying the liberty of America we will lose not only this country but our way of life.

I know this, and that is this enemy respects only one thing, and that is raw power and the intent to use it. We should set up and aim ICBM’s at Mecca and Medina now, and let all of Islam know that any attack on the U.S. by Islam will result in the launch of those ICBM’s to the so-called holy sites of Islam, the throne of Allah himself.

This Administration should hire the best journalists, advertisers, psychologists that this country has to offer to start a campaign to convince Islam that an attack on the U.S. anywhere will definitely result in the leveling of Mecca and Medina. If there is a deterrent against an Islamic attack, this would be it.

de Andréa

Monday, August 20, 2007

I am not a Muslim

Rep. Keith Ellison, our resident self-proclaimed Muslim Congressmen now claims that he may not be a Muslim because he is not crazy. He just may be correct on that note.

By de Andrea

Congressman Ellison has just returned from his second trip to Israel – where he said "he does not understand Muslim "crazies” who see the Koran as a license to murder". It may be that he does not understand Islam period.

The first-term Minnesota Democrat told the Jerusalem Post. "The murderers and the extremists are into something I don't know about,"

This is a prime example of a MINO, a Muslim In Name Only, or, what one may refer to as a MOTRM a Middle Of The Road Muslim, or a so-called M&M the stealthy Moderate Muslim. However, if he does not understand Muhammad’s Quran then he probably is not a Muslim at all.

He went on to say, "I don't know how they read what they read and come out with what they do. They do not consider me a Muslim because I am American, and because I believe in the unity of people and that we are all on the planet to work together.” Well Mr. American Muslim I would sure like to see just where in the Quran your prophet Muhammad wrote anything about the unity of man, even Muslims have a difficult time becoming united with other Muslims.

So, Middle Eastern Muslims would not consider Rep. Ellison a Muslim. Now correct me if I am wrong, Islam began and is central to the Middle East is it not? Moreover, these Muhammedan Middle Eastern Muslims do not consider him a Muslim, well just maybe, he is not a Muslim. He says it is because he is not crazy. So is he or isn’t he, a Muslim???

The Congressman continued, "The people who did 9/11 are hostile to everyone, and in fact if you are not the type of Muslim they want you to be, they would be happy to kill you too”, (now that sounds more like a Muslim). “ I am not a Muslim in their eyes because I am for tolerance and inclusion, and they don't want an Islam that is inclusive.” ( Now he sounds like a liberal) However maybe there is hope for the Congressman after all. He should try reading the bible; he might understand that a bit better. Besides the love of Jesus gives one a bit more hope than the hate of Allah.

"The people in my district don't know me as a Muslim Congressman, they know me as Keith,” the former state legislator told the Post. Well I have news for you Congressman, if you do not follow the teachings of Muhammad, Allah doesn’t know you as a Muslim either.

He continued, "I don't see myself as a religious leader or a religious scholar. I do not represent a religion. I do not represent the Muslims. I represent the Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Christians, and those who do not follow anything in my district. When you get to the bottom line, the main reason I am here [in Israel] is to be able to talk to the people of the 5th Congressional District about something a lot of people care about - what happens here in Israel and in the Palestinian Authority.”

Repeating what Rep. Keith Ellison said earlier, "I don't know how they read what they read and come out with what they do.” Well Mr. Ellison, I would love to sit down with you, and in less than five minutes, I could teach you about the agenda of Islam right from the Quran. For Example Quran 8:60 referring to non Muslims “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know.” Or Quran 2:191 also referring to non Muslims “And slay them where ever ye may find them an drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter.” Or Quran 47:4 “Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks; at length…” meaning to cut off their heads. (again, that sounds more like a Muslim)

THE BOTTOM LINE: I cannot help but wonder if Mr. so-called M&M Moderate Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison has actually ever read the Quran or the Hadith, because the Quran is just full of these kinds of teachings by their god Allah. He may be reading the special translation meant for Infidels so that they don’t know the truth about Islam. He should learn to read Arabic or try a real, clear, and complete translation like the one by N.J. Dawood. I do hope he knows the Constitution better than he knows the Quran.

He may be right about one thing though, Muslims are crazy, if your god was Allah, you would be too…

de Andréa
Related Articles

Sunday, August 19, 2007

Terrorist Strike Within U.S.

Terrorist Strike Within U.S., A Very Real Threat

Americans should expect a terrorists strike on American soil, possibly with a weapon of mass destruction within the next 10 months.

By de Andréa

This belief, is the combined consensus of the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, and independent Intelligence agencies such as North East Intelligence Network

Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey says that if Iran fails to comply with international efforts to stop its nuclear weapons program, the U.S. will have no other option than to bomb it. "I think the threat of a serious attack in the next few months is very real," Woolsey said. “A terrorist strike with a dirty bomb or with biological weapons is a real possibility.”

Woolsey's comments echo those of FBI Director Robert Mueller, who said in early May that, although unlikely in the near future, al-Qaida's paramount goal is clear: to detonate a nuclear device that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans. A dirty bomb (meaning a conventional bomb containing nuclear material creating radioactive fallout or containing bio material) however is not out of the sphere of possibility.

Terrorists Plotting Now
While Woolsey doubted terrorists would soon be able to acquire a fissionable nuclear explosive device, he warned that terrorists were trying to acquire one, either on the black market from the former Soviet Union, or from North Korea.

The former CIA director said he favored "really tough sanctions" on Iran for another few months, but if that failed to bring Iran's nuclear weapons program to a halt, the United States had no other choice but to bomb Iran's nuclear sites.

He also blasted those in the State Department who believe we can convince the Iranians through negotiations to stop their nuclear programs. "I've never thought there's a chance in hell of that," he said.

When asked what three things we need to do to make America safer, Woolsey said that the first and most important was not to tie the president's hands when it came to intelligence collection. Efforts by Democrats to require court orders to intercept international communications amounted to "shooting ourselves in the foot," he added.

More Pressure on Iran
Next, he said the United States absolutely must step up pressure on Iran, by focusing on Iran's weak economic underbelly and the wellspring of popular discontent with the regime. In the longer term, Woolsey said it was essentially that the U.S. beef up its military forces and to prepare Americans psychologically and politically for a long war with radical Islamic terrorists, I think this is going to be a long war, and we need to treat it as such, and go on a full war-footing,"

I couldn’t agree more about a full war footing. If one knows their war history one will know that the U.S. has not really won a war since WWII. One of the obvious reasons is that all were undeclared wars. A full war footing to me means a full congressionally declared war, just as the Second World War. This would open up a whole new avenue of Presidential powers that could take the wind out of the sails of Islam and finally put the fear of God into these demonically possessed maniacs.

The countries of Islam import about 40 percent of refined oil products, such as gasoline and diesel. Beginning right now, we need to work with those countries that sell these refined oil products to them, and figure out how to get those stopped. I don’t believe that sanctions by themselves will work, but it will put their economy in a downward spiral.

We also need to broadcast into Iran, and all Middle Eastern countries, in the fashion we used to do on Radio Free Europe during the Cold War into Eastern Europe.
So I would still like to see us try that not half-heartedly but vigorously, and not be deterred at all by the threats and the other steps that they will take.

One must understand that the Persians invented chess, and they are good at it. Their most valuable piece, their "queen" really, is their nuclear weapons program. Syria rises to the level of a rook, since that's a government. Hamas, Moqtada al-Sadr, Hezbollah, they're all pawns.

Whether it is the war with Israel or the U.S., they move their subordinate pieces around in such a way as to protect their queen. Once they have a nuclear weapon, the world changes in many extraordinarily and unpleasant ways.

So I believe that for a short time, four to five months, or a year, but it's surely not much longer than that; we can still try tough sanctions, and all the other steps; the right kind of broadcasting, and all the rest. If that doesn't work, then we're in a situation where we have no choice but to take military action to destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Military force should always be the last resort but the alternative is unthinkable. We just cannot allow a country like Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

Talking to one adversary is usually a good first step, but in the case of Islam, one would want to do it when one has an edge or a threat over them, not when they have an edge over you.

It might have been different right after Baghdad fell, when clearly they were very worried. But I am not confidant that we're not going to have any positive effect from negotiations at this time. What I am saying is, if you're going to negotiate with an adversary, the time to do it is when they are feeling weak and you have just demonstrated your strength.

If our Administration is about to bomb Iran, one will know because of the sudden pullout of our ships in the gulf just prior to an attack. This is because it's a constrained sea, moreover, they have lots of small boats that could be used to attack, and they have cruise missiles with a range to potentially be effective against U.S. naval forces in the Gulf, whereas the open ocean, the blue ocean… is our turf.. That's where we're at home and where we want to be. Our carrier aircraft have the range along with B-52s and B-1s and B-2s to reach targets in Iran even if they're operating from the open ocean as well as from the Gulf.

Their threats of destroying Israel, if they can, are as real as "Mein-Kampf.” Their potential to unleash Hezbollah, which is the world's most professional terrorist organization, much more capable really than al-Qaida or others, could conceivably do a lot of damage in the U.S. as well as various places abroad, including Iraq.

This is certainly not something that should deter us if we have to take action to deter them from potentially having a nuclear weapon.

The director of national Intelligence, Adm. McConnell, FBI Director Mueller, and the president have all warned us that the terrorists want to strike us again here at home.

I think the threat of a serious attack in the next few months is very real. It's what Chertoff said about his gut feeling. A lot of people made fun of that, but I think that was a senior government official trying to communicate something without saying here's my evidence, because if he says that, he might have blown the source or method of intelligence.

Various things that he and McConnell and Mueller and others have been saying all suggest that there's a real possibility of something happening and possibly something very bad, late this summer or this fall.

Unless al-Qaida or the Iranians have been able to obtain a loose old Soviet nuke, it's unlikely it would be a nuclear detonation. It might be possible they could get hold of other nuclear material, like cesium or strontium, which is much easier to get hold of, and have something like a dirty bomb. And certainly biological material, like anthrax, is much easier to produce and get hold of than fissionable material.

Moreover, we don't know what the North Koreans might be willing to sell to Iran. They have essentially a joint ballistic missile development program; the Shahab and the Taepo Doing/No Dong is essentially the same missile, certainly with the same ranges.

North Korea has several bombs worth of plutonium, but plutonium bombs are harder to construct than simple highly-enriched uranium bombs. I believe that it's possible that the North Koreans had a HEU program, and at one point they seemed to admit it. But I don't know of any estimates of what they have or what they had.

Certainly, the Soviets had atomic demolition munitions that were relatively small. But they had ADM’s that could easily be carried by one man. That was also true of some of the smaller nuclear artillery shells that existed. So it's not impossible that a terrorist group could get hold of a former Soviet relatively small nuclear warhead.

The thing that we can do in the short order that is most important and that is not to cut back on our intelligence capabilities, whether it's through restricting the president's ability to intercept communications or otherwise. We know how to do that reasonably well and don't want see us shoot ourselves in the foot by cutting back on it.

The second thing is the steps I mentioned earlier about Iran, from broadcasting to cutting off their imports of gasoline and diesel and all the other financial and economic steps. Further down the line, I think we need a substantial increase in our military forces, in our overall national stance of going on a war-footing, we need to actually get serious and officially declare war on Islam. That alone would contribute to their respect for us. The mindset that this is just a law enforcement matter is just pure ignorance of the Muslim agenda.

THE BOTTOM LINE: I believe this is going to be a long war; the last big war against Islam took 200 years. We need to treat this as a real war; and go on a full war-footing, declaring war and making it easy for John Doe’s to give alerts when they see the flying imams doing their thing. We also need to support profiling especially when it comes to Middle Easterners, (“sometimes, if it looks like a duck it may just be a duck). We need to work closely with allies in the Middle East, I think particularly with Israel. “Appeasers are playing a dangerous game. For, as history has repeatedly proven, weakness in the face of aggression only leads to further bloodshed”, Says Cinnamon Stillwell a San Francisco writer.

Middle Easterners in particular if not people from all Muslims countries, should not be allowed to immigrate or receive any kind of entrance into this country especially while we are at war with them. This should be a no-brainer, but because of political correctness, we may be incrementally cutting our own throats.

de Andréa

Saturday, August 18, 2007


Fred Thompson’s Campaign Manager May Be Working for the Enemy

By de Andréa

Thompson's claim that he understands the Islamist jihadist threat to America may be just that, nothing more that a claim.

He hasn't entered the Presidential race yet, but recently Fred Thompson, showed us why he is the scariest Republican Presidential candidate. Moreover, he may be the scariest of both parties.

His announcement, of his choice of Spencer Abraham as campaign manager, told us everything we need to know. Although Abraham, of Lebanese descent, claims to be a Christian, he is a career water carrier for Islamic terrorists. His failed, one-term Senate career and equally lousy tenure as Energy Secretary reveals his connections to America’s dreaded enemy.
Thompson's choice of Edward Spencer Abraham was the final nail in the coffin for me in opposing Fred Thompson's quest for the White House.

The Spencer Abraham that all of America has experienced is bad news for everyone except CAIR, ADC, MPAC, ISNA, and all Islamists who want to endanger America.

After Abraham was Energy Secretary, he left to become a lobbyist for Islam . As a Senator, he took marching orders from James Zogby of the pan-Islamist Arab American Institute, a terrorist supporting organization, opposing profiling of Arabs, the use of secret evidence against Muslims (at the behest of Muslim groups), attempting to repeal the Clinton counterterrorism package, refusing to fund computer tracking of student and other foreign aliens, giving millions in our tax money right to Hezbollah, and putting CAIR, a known terrorist support group, on the map on Capitol Hill (taking the group's officials around to meet other Senators and Members of Congress). He took campaign contributions from the relatives of Hezbollah-backed top Lebanese officials after he got the group millions in our tax money.

Spencer was one of only two Senators in the entire U.S. Senate who refused to sign a letter calling on President Clinton to condemn Palestinian terrorism and Yasser Arafat. This was at the height of a series of homicide bombings in Israel in 1999 and 2000.

As Energy Secretary, he gave top-secret tours of nuclear facilities, as well as detailed information on how we secure them to Muslim nations who are our enemies. Moreover, he gave out undue post-9/11 awards to Al-Qaeda money-launderers . . . at the White House. U.S. Customs Service agents raided the money launderers.

After he left the Bush cabinet, Spence became a lobbyist for Mid-Eastern Muslim countries that practice the Arab boycott of Israel and do not really like us too much either. He took their money and until the Thompson race, did their bidding.Can one really support a guy like Fred Thompson, who picked this man to head up his team? Either Thompson is clueless about Abraham, which should immediately disqualify him for the White House and reveal to all of us about how he makes decisions. Or, on the other hand, if he knows about Abraham, and went with him anyway. Just as bad.

In 2000, President Bush said his Cabinet would "look like America," nominating Abraham, the defeated Lebanese-American Senator from Michigan, to Energy Secretary--part of Bush’s politically correct strategy for targeting the Arab vote.However, was this political strategy in the best interest of the country? Abraham's record suggests otherwise.
In the two years since 9/11, Abraham did absolutely nothing to improve our precarious electric power situation.

In addition, since 9/11, Abraham unbelievably continued the controversial UN-sponsored program allowing foreign visitors from countries on the State Department terrorist list to tour U.S. nuclear reactors. This was a course sponsored by the UN International Atomic Energy Agency, taught by U.S. nuclear weapons lab security personnel. It gives tours of Nuclear Regulatory Commission facilities and teaches participants from 57 countries--including Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia--security techniques employed at American nuclear sites. "They were teaching them to black out systems, which they could use against us at labs," an official told a popular news site.

Investigative research reporter Paul Sperry, author of "Infiltration." reported on this extensively. Infiltration is an excellent book about Islam’s (so far successful) plans to take control of the U.S. from the inside and how wars like Iraq, and Afghanistan as well as the coming war with Iran, may just be a diversion (something the Muslims are good at) for the real war against the west called Infiltration. So far, this has been very successful in Europe.

The Clinton Administration taught the course to foreign representatives, as well. However, that was pre-9/11. In the post-9/11 era, Abraham irresponsibly continued this practice, despite protests.

Then there is Jamal Barzinji. Abraham enlisted him to find parties who helped and reached out to Muslims after 9/11, with Abraham hosting an awards ceremony for them. Problem is, Barzinji is an officer and/or director in SAFA Trust, Mar-Jac Poultry, and International Institute for Islamic Thought, all raided by Customs in March 2002 for laundering over $1.7 billion to Al-Qaeda and Islamic Jihad (through University of South Florida terrorist professor and Islamic Jihad founder and front-man, Sami Al-Arian).

Edward Spencer Abraham is up to his preverbal prayer rug in supporting terrorist organizations. What is difficult to understand is why this guy isn’t vacationing in club Gitmo?
More troubling is Abraham's Senate record, ignored by his former Senate colleagues in an easy confirmation hearing.

Should a Senator who deliberately endangered national security just to get Arab/Muslim votes and campaign money be entrusted to oversee U.S. energy policy and access?
Abraham's frightening national security record included Liberal immigration policy, including lax foreign visitor tracking, at the behest of Arab/Muslim groups; Tried to End Profiling, Secret Evidence Use Against Terrorists.

Abraham was Senate Immigration Subcommittee Chairman through the end of 2000. Abraham routinely caved to the demands of Arab/Muslim leaders, such as the Arab American Institute's James Zogby, on national security matters, especially immigration.
"Ever since (I first met) him, Abraham has been coming to us and giving advice, support and the benefits of his leadership," Zogby told The Detroit News.

Taking Zogby's advice: Abraham actively worked to delay computer systems to track foreign visitors, which Arab/Muslim groups, including Zogby's, strongly opposed. The 1996 immigration law required computerized entry and exit tracking of all temporary visas, but was gutted by Abraham and other legislators. They refused to allocate money for the program and delayed its full implementation until 2005.

In 2000, Abraham, as Chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, delayed implementation of other requirements of the 1996 immigration measure, including university-assisted enforcement of student visa laws and collection of fees from foreign students to pay for computer tracking.

These programs might have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks. However, Abraham desperately craved the Arab/Muslim vote in Michigan.

As crazy, as it may sound one cannot help but recognize that the U.S. Government may be hopelessly infiltrated with Islamic influence, to the point that we are supporting our own enemy. Moreover, if Fred and his treasonous Islam terrorist supporters get into the White House, well… you may have to fire your barber and buy a prayer rug.

Foreign aid funding for Hezbollah, rewarded by pseudo-foreign campaign contributions: In July 2000, Abraham sought over $268 million in tax-funded US AID grants for Hezbollah terrorist-controlled Southern Lebanon at Arab American Institute's Zogby's request. The Iranian- and Syrian-backed Hezbollah Terrorist organization has targeted and murdered many Americans. Millions in similar US AID grants (which have scant strings and accountability attached) to Afghanistan were misspent on Taliban terrorist activities.

Abraham enlisted Michigan Republican Congressman Joe Knollenberg, on the House International Relations Committee, to push the questionable aid package in the House. They ended up obtaining $86 million, which went straight to Hezbollah and which was not tracked thereafter. They knew this, and that is why Spencer and Zogby sought the money for their Hezbollah friends.

Abraham and Knollenberg were repaid for their efforts, receiving thousands in campaign contributions from Nijad Fares, the Houston-based green card-holding son of Syrian-backed Lebanese Deputy Prime Minister Issam Fares.

Soft on terrorismAbraham was one of only two U.S. Senators who refused to sign an October 2000 letter to President Clinton condemning terrorist acts by Yasser Arafat and the P.L.O.Abraham led the nearly successful June 2001 attempt to reverse the use of classified evidence against terrorists, sponsoring the legislation at the behest of Islamist groups, including the American Muslim Association (AMA) and the American Muslim Political Coordination Council (AMPCC), both headed by Agha Saeed.In July 1999, Abraham wrote to Saeed, AMA, and AMPCC asking their support: "Your efforts are truly needed in the political arena. . . . You can truly make a difference in the political and policy arenas, and I remain committed to helping you achieve that goal."

But Saeed openly praised Palestinian terrorism as "armed resistance" and appeared at lectures and events sponsored by Hamas front groups, including one panel, in which he was joined by the indicted Al-Arian, entitled: "Zionism: A Racist and Colonialist Ideology.” AMA-sponsored events featured these exhortations: "The trees and the stones will say, oh Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him!” “ Victory comes from Allah and Hezbollah is our model.”

THE BOTTOM LINE: Given Edward Spencer Abraham's record of illegal activates and support of Islamic terrorist interests on virtually every national security issue, as well as his hegemony of American Energy is disturbing. He should control no form of power, political or electric. Moreover if Fred Thompson is either incapable of proper discernment, or, he advocates this kind of behavior in government, it is certain that he is not good for America. Personally, I see this as just part of the surreptitious and incremental infiltration of Islam into the U.S. Federal Government. Whether we when the war in the Middle East or not, our blind ignorance will surly lose us this silent war here a home.

What do you think???

de Andréa

Friday, August 17, 2007


Part Of The Hamas Family Of Terrorists

I have written many articles about the Council on American Islamic Relations otherwise known as (CAIR), as well as other American infiltrated and embedded Islamic terrorist organizations. The purpose is to expose them for what they really are; this is likely why members of CAIR have had the bad habit of threatening my life.

By de Andréa

If for example, one discovers Islamic organization collecting money for charity, it is a safe bet that the recipient of that charity is terrorism. Has anyone ever heard of a benevolent Muslim? NO? If you wonder why, it is because you will never find the words benevolence, caring, charity or love in the Quran, and is therefore not part of their theocratic structure.

The Federal Government has arrested many of CAIR’s leaders for having ties to terrorist organizations and yet it is recognized by this administration as a warm fuzzy bunch of “Moderate American Muslims” The White House has romanced, coddled, and schmoozed this Islamic organization. It is privy to Home Security and Customs Intel; moreover, it even trains security personnel in “Muslim sensitivity”. CAIR along with many other Islamic terrorist cells has totally infiltrated American government from the Fed on down. And in some cases, they totally control local city and or county governments in the U.S.

Go here to see a threatening letter from CAIR's attornrys to try to stop the truth from being told.

As the trial for the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) grinds along, the mountain of evidence presented by prosecutors demonstrates, in detail, the existence of a grand Muslim Brotherhood network in the United States dating back to the 1960s. A segment of this network, the self-designated “Palestine Committee,” financially, politically, and morally supports the efforts of HAMAS to destroy the “Zionist enemy.”

Read – the Palestine Committee’s 1991 bylaws (Unless you read Arabic, page down for English) - reveals a web of key organizations tied to the Committee that were tasked with promoting HAMAS’ agenda, each in a particular field. Six groups were listed, the most prominent being HLF, the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), and the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR).

What has so far gone unnoticed though, is one last organization on this list that the Committee hoped to establish in the future. As stated in the bylaws, this organization would handle “issues relating to political work and foreign relations”: It is a committee that operates through the Association [IAP] for now. It is hoped that it will become an official organization for political work, and its headquarters will be in Washington. It represents the political aspect to support the cause politically on the American front.

An organization headquartered in Washington, DC, tasked with political activism, born out of the IAP? Maybe a vague reference at first glance, but growing evidence points to the identity of the mystery organization listed in the bylaws as the youngest in the family of HAMAS front groups founded on American soil.

That was in 1991, in July 30, 1994, a just week after the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) was founded. A Palestine Committee meeting agenda lists several issues to be discussed, including a review of the reports of the “working organizations.” Listed among the organizations right beside HLF, IAP, and UASR – all members of the Palestine Committee as listed in the bylaws – is the word “CAIR."

The same CAIR that is headquartered in Washington, and whose co-founders - executive director Nihad Awad and chairman emeritus Omar Ahmad - served as president and public relations director, respectively, of the IAP . In an early speech, Ahmad said, “the agenda of CAIR is to rule America and then the world”

Add to that recently-released evidence that both Ahmad and Awad were present at a 1993 meeting in Philadelphia attended by two-dozen HAMAS members and supporters. According to an FBI analysis and transcripts of wiretapped conversations, they spent three days discussing the most effective approach to derail the Oslo Accords, a peace deal with the potential to end the decades-old conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

This latest document tying CAIR to HAMAS is just one more piece of the puzzle, and it raises serious questions about the organization’s political agenda in the United States. Should an organization listed on Muslim Brotherhood documents, with leaders directly tied to the movement, really escape scrutiny and be accepted as the “mainstream” voice of an entire community? Should CAIR a Muslim organization with ties to terrorists groups and cells be in charge of any aspect of security in the United States? Or, on the other hand, should the American public and political establishment take another look?

The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) Counter Terrorism

THE BOTTOM LINE: This kind of governmental behavior is analogical to encouraging Nazi organizations inside the U.S. during the Second World War. This is incomprehensible conduct on the part of this administration. Who ever is in charge of the National Defence is certainly not cognoscente of who Islam is and what their more than 1300 year old agenda is. This irresponsible ignorance will eventually make itself evident, but this deceptive “axis of evil” waits for no one, not even an ignorant fool.

Read other related supporting articles from The Bottom Line and other sites.
Muslim Sensitivity Training CAIR
Mosques Awarded Grants by Homeland Security CAIR
More on Indoctrination And Islamic Infiltration MSA

de Andréa

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

The Making of a Country

The Making of a Country and the Security of Freedom

The men, who founded America, understood that a central government was necessary to protect this nation from a foreign invasion, but an armed people would be necessary to secure a free state.

By de Andréa
The Framers also knew that government agents could not always be trusted to use their authority justly, and that government would remain the single greatest threat to the rights and liberties of the American people.

America's Founding Fathers knew that freedom required that the people always retain the ability to take government out of the hands of abusive officials, "to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.” This was far from just some lofty theory to the Founders. They had witnessed oppressive governments firsthand and had seen this principle unfold in dramatic practice as thousands of armed citizens took up their muskets and drove the king's soldiers — their government's soldiers — back to Boston on April 19, 1775. The United States was born out of the fight against government tyranny.

Most important, the Framers remembered this when they created a new Constitution. To ensure that government remains in the hands of the people, the Second Amendment guaranteed that the citizen militia would remain sacrosanct. …”shall not be infringed”

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is the most abused and the least understood of all rights documented in the Constitution. Few today have any idea of the true meaning and intent of this provision, and most people are more likely to deride the right either as an archaic and unnecessary remnant of an embarrassing past, or at best merely some benign assurance that "sportsmen" will be able to go hunting. Neither is true.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is in fact, the most important and integral part of being an American and the preservation of freedom. When our ancestors followed the example of half the state governments and included a "right to arms" provision in the Federal Bill of Rights, they unapologetically and irrefutably established a nation of free and autonomous individuals.

By granting legal and moral recognition to the inalienable right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution — "the supreme law of the land" — Americans made concrete in practice that every single free citizen would remain the final repository of political power. Early American statesmen were following the sage advice of such men as the Scottish philosopher and militia advocate Andrew Fletcher, who argued that "arms are the only true badges of liberty," providing "the distinction of a free-man from a slave."

Without armed individuals, we have a police state not a free state; the people's rights could too easily become prey to the whim of an ambitious executive, the edicts of a corrupt legislature or the proclamations of false-hearted judges. Under an armed citizenry, this becomes much more difficult. Government must proceed carefully when exercising power, lest a "long Train of Abuses and Usurpations" inspire the people to again water the "tree of liberty . . . with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

In no other culture and under no other government has the importance of an armed citizenry been made so explicit or as carefully guaranteed as it has under the American constitutional order. While both ancient Rome and the British Parliament paid statutory lip service to the value of being armed, only in the United States was being armed, recognized as an inviolable right protected and documented by the Constitution. What started with gunfire at Lexington and Concord ended with the words of Tench Coxe, a friend of James Madison: "Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of every American. . . . [The] unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

James Madison also understood the ultimate, fail-safe role of the citizen militia. In the Federalist papers #46, he dismissed fears of a standing army being used against the people because it "would be opposed [by] a militia. . . with arms in their hands.” A few years later he would write what became the Second Amendment, with its promise that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not [never] be infringed."

THE BOTTOM LINE: If the average person today wonders about his relationship to his government, the Second Amendment provides enormous guidance. It represents the ideal of American political and social life: the individual, self-governing, self-motivated, self-respecting, dignified, free citizen — who takes these virtues so seriously that he will maintain and retain the personal power to back them up.

de Andréa