Once Again Netanyahu Shames UN and Obama

Gary Fouse

Hat tip American Thinker

Once again, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has shown himself to be a man among Lilliputians every time he goes to speak at the UN. This week was no exception. Speaking before that body of Third World corruptocrats and First World cowards, he pointed out to  them their utter silence in the face of Iran's threats to destroy Israel punctuated by a 44-second pause in his speech while the UN delegates-those who had not walked out-sat on their hands in silence. He told them that he was ready to negotiate with the Palestinians with no conditions. He pointed out to them that they had passed some 40 resolutions against his nation in the past year compared to just one against Syria! He showed them up for the small people they are.

Of course, he was met by silence. There was also silence from our Secretary of State John Kerry and our UN ambassador Samantha Power-because they weren't there. President Obama had pulled them out to attend a White House meeting-just the latest in a long series of snubs against Israel and its prime minister by this administration. The below report, with video of Netanyahu's speech is linked below by American Thinker.


And the Palestinian reaction to Netanyahu's willingness to negotiate? Another massacre. Two Israeli parents were ambushed in their car Thursday night and murdered by Palestinian gunmen before the terrified eyes of their four children, the oldest of whom was 9 years old. (I am surprised they didn't kill the children as well.)


And what is the response of the Palestinian people themselves in The West Bank and Gaza? Horror? Disgust? Statements that the killers do not represent them?

No. What we witness are celebrations and fireworks.


The Palestinians. The only thing they know is hatred. They only thing they know how to do is kill and destroy. Yet, they are the beknighted darlings of the UN and the international left. The UN now even gives them observer status and gives them a role in the International Criminal Court so they can bring human rights lawsuits against Israel. They are celebrated in Europe and the West even though they spit at us.

They are killers. And if they don't do the actual killing, they cheer the actual killers. Mothers even raise their children to be suicide bombers.

And to you in academia, these are the people whose cause you champion no matter how many terrorist attacks they carry out against innocent Israeli civilians or civilians from other countries including our own. This is what you support. This is what you enable. You didn't care about the Munich Olympics massacre in 1972. You didn't care about the Achille Lauro attack in the 1980s. You didn't care about the Israeli buses blown apart by suicide bombers. You didn't care when the Fogel family was butchered in their beds a few years ago including a months-old baby. And you don't care about this latest murder that left four young orphans behind.

Those of you in the Middle East studies departments that infest our universities are too consumed with seeing that Israel is destroyed and becomes Palestine-from the river to the sea-with none of those hated Jews left. And those of you in other departments who have jumped onto this anti-Israeli bandwagon either because of your anti-Western, post-colonial philosophies or just because many of you are nothing more than 99 cent anti-capitalist Marxists, you share in the blame as well.

I have no sympathy with the Palestinian cause. They forfeited that way back in the late 1960s when I watched them skyjacking planes and murdering innocents in the name of their "cause".  In one form or another, they have never left terrorism. A Palestinian state would be nothing more than a base for terrorism and attacking Israel while having to survive on international handouts and welfare.

Of course Benjamin Netanyahu didn't say all that. I did.

The True Taste of Pakistan

Gary Fouse

That's what two restaurant owners advertised in their kebab joint in Nottingham, England. Now they have been ordered to pay fines and restitution after some 150 patrons came down with e-coli from fecal infected food. (Hat tip Vlad Tepes)


I think their lawyer should have argued that the owners adequately warned the patrons on the front window.

Stop the Flood of Syrian (and Other Muslim) Refugees Coming Here

Gary Fouse

Hat tip Front Page Magazine, Steve and David

On the one hand, we have a president determined to run this country into the ground so he and his Democratic successors can rebuild it in their Utopian fashion. On the other hand, we have John Kerry, one of the biggest fools ever to serve as secretary of state. Together, they are working to join the EU in committing national suicide by flooding our respective societies with more and more Muslims. Daniel Greenfield in Frontpage Magazine reports on the dirty work being done by our leaders.


Have we not learned by the Boston Marathon bombing, which was conducted by two refugees from Daghestan? Apparently not.

But here is what we can do.

Support Rep. Brian Babin's bill (HR 3314) described below.


A friend has emailed me a list of Congressional leaders who you can contact along with talking points. I assume these are committee leaders/GOP.


REASONS (If anyone asks)

3. If Congress wants to provide aid to Syrians staying in the Middle East that would be fine, but no money should be spent to bring them to the U.S.

Following are the relevant lists and their contact info.


Mitch McConnell (KY) – Majority Leader
(202) 224-2541

John Cornyn (TX) – Majority Whip

Roy Blunt (MO) – Chair, Rules Committee
(202) 224-5721

John Thune (SD) – Chair, Senate Republican Conference
202) 224-2321

Phone: 202-224-7257

Cochran, Thad (MS), Chairman (202) 224-5054 (Offices: http://www.cochran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/offices)
Mitch McConnell, (KY) (202) 224-2541
Richard Shelby, (AL) (202) 224-5744 (Offices: http://www.shelby.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/offices)
Lamar Alexander, (TN) (202) 224-4944 (Offices: http://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/officelocations).
Susan Collins, (ME) (202) 224-2523 (Offices: http://www.collins.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/phone)
Lisa Murkowski, (AK) (202) 224-6665 (Offices:http://www.murkowski.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/officelocations)
Lindsey Graham, (SC) (202) 224-5972 (Offices: http://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/office-locations)
Mark Kirk, (IL) 202-224-2854 (Offices: http://www.kirk.senate.gov/?p=offices)
Roy Blunt, (MO) (202) 224-5721
Jerry Moran, (KS) (202) 224-6521 (Offices: http://www.moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-info)
John Hoeven, (ND) 202-224-2551 (Offices: http://www.hoeven.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/office-locations)
John Boozman, (AR) (202) 224-4843 (Offices: http://www.boozman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/office-locations)
Shelley Moore Capito, (WV) 202-224-6472 (Offices: http://www.capito.senate.gov/contact/office-locations)
Bill Cassidy, (LA) (202) 224-5824 (Offices: http://www.cassidy.senate.gov/contact/office-locations)
James Lankford, (OK) (202) 224-5754 (Offices: http://www.lankford.senate.gov/content/contact-james)
Steve Daines, (MT) (202) 224-2651 (Offices: http://www.daines.senate.gov/ scroll to bottom)


John Boehner (OH) – Speaker
(202) 225-0600
Link to OH Offices: http://www.speaker.gov/contact scroll to bottom

Kevin McCarthy (CA) – Majority Leader
(202) 225-2915

Steve Scalise (LA) – Majority Whip
(202) 225-3015
Link to LA Offices: https://scaliseforms.house.gov/contact/ scroll to bottom


Harold Rogers, Kentucky, Chairman (202) 225-4601 (Offices: http://halrogers.house.gov/contact/offices.htm)
Rodney P. Frelinghuysen, New Jersey (202) 225-5034 (Offices: http://frelinghuysen.house.gov/contact-us/)
Robert B. Aderholt, Alabama (202) 225-4876 (Offices: https://aderholt.house.gov/contact/offices)
Kay Granger, Texas (202) 225-5071 (Offices: http://kaygranger.house.gov/contact-kay)
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho (202) 225-5531 (Offices: http://simpson.house.gov/contact/ scroll to bottom)
John Abney Culberson, Texas (202) 225-2571 (Offices: http://culberson.house.gov/contact/officelocations.htm)
Ander Crenshaw, Florida (202) 225-2501 (Offices: http://crenshaw.house.gov/index.cfm/officelocations)
John R. Carter, Texas (202) 225-3864 (Offices: http://carter.house.gov/contact-john-nav scroll to bottom)
Ken Calvert, California (202) 225-1986 (Offices: http://calvert.house.gov/contact/)
Tom Cole, Oklahoma (202) 225-6165 (Offices: http://cole.house.gov/office-locations)
Mario Diaz-Balart, Florida (202) 225-4211 (Offices: https://mariodiazbalart.house.gov/contact/offices)
Charles W. Dent, Pennsylvania (202)-225-6411 (Offices: http://dent.house.gov/?p=OfficeInformation)
Tom Graves, Georgia (202) 225-5211 (Offices: http://tomgraves.house.gov/contact/officeinformation.htm)
Kevin Yoder, Kansas (202) 225-2865 (Offices: https://yoder.house.gov/contact/offices)
Steve Womack, Arkansas (202) 225-4301 (Offices: http://womack.house.gov/contact/officeinformation.htm)
Jeff Fortenberry, Nebraska (202) 225-4806 (Officeshttps://fortenberry.house.gov/contact/offices)
Tom Rooney, Florida (202) 225-5792 (Offices: https://rooney.house.gov/contact/offices)
Chuck Fleischmann, Tennessee (202) 225-3271 (Offices: https://fleischmann.house.gov/contact-me)
Jaime Herrera Beutler, Washington (202) 225-3536 (Offices: http://herrerabeutler.house.gov/contact/officeinformation.htm)
David Joyce, Ohio (202) 225-5731 (Offices: http://joyce.house.gov/my-office-locations/)
David Valadao, California (202) 225-4695 (Offices: https://valadao.house.gov/contact/officeinformation.htm)
Andy Harris, MD, Maryland (202) 225-5311 (Offices: https://harris.house.gov/contact-me scroll to bottom)
Martha Roby, Alabama (202) 225-2901 (Offices: http://roby.house.gov/our-district/my-offices)
Mark Amodei, Nevada (202) 225-6155 (Offices: https://amodei.house.gov/contact-us/)
Chris Stewart, Utah (202) 225-9730 (Offices: https://stewart.house.gov/contact/offices)
Scott Rigell, Virginia (202) 225-4215 (Offices: http://rigell.house.gov/contact/officeinformation.htm)
David Jolly, Florida (202) 225-5961 (Offices: http://jolly.house.gov/contact/offices/)
David Young, Iowa (202) 225-5476 (Offices: https://davidyoung.house.gov/contact/offices)
Evan Jenkins, West Virginia (202) 225-3452 (Offices: https://evanjenkins.house.gov/contact/offices)
Steven Palazzo, Mississippi (202) 225-5772 (Offices: http://palazzo.house.gov/contact/officeinformation.htm)

It should not take longer than a few minutes to blast through these calls. If you live in a state where one of these members resides, be sure to call that member in every single one of his/her offices. FURTHERMORE, CALL YOUR PERSONAL GOP REPRESENTATIVE AND SENATORS WITH THE SAME MESSAGE. You can find their contact information here:

University of California Regents Conference

Gary Fouse

This week I attended parts of two days at the University of California Regents meeting held at UC Irvine. My main purpose in going was to participate in the public comments forum (Sept. 17) when the main issue of discussion was intolerance on campus. There had been a move to have the university implement the State Department's definition of anti-Semitism. Pro-Palestinian groups were in opposition. If I am not mistaken, the proposal was initially made  by UC President Janet Napolitano. In response, the UC provost and vice provost wrote up a proposed statement of principles on intolerance, which was very general and did not specifically mention anti-Semitism. The pro-Palestinan forces support this draft and those (like me) who are complaining about campus anti-Semitism are opposed to it.

I also attended yesterday (Sept. 16) when the topic of discussion was a proposed union contract with the university that concerned different university workers including physicians, interns, nurses and others. The reason I attended was not because I was interested in the issue, rather because I wanted to get a feel for how the meeting proceeded. I noted that during the public comment portion, Napolitano paid attention to the speakers (who were limited to one minute). Today, she was distracted about half the time and seemed not to be paying attention to some of the speakers.

Today, I was the first speaker on the list. (Again, we had one minute to speak.) I read from a prepared paper (which was a mistake because about half way through my hands began to shake holding the paper. That's old age for you.) Here is the text of what I said:

 "My name is Gary Fouse,  I am an adjunct teacher in the UC Irvine Extension. I am also the co-author of a  letter to  President Napolitano signed by over 100 UC faculty expressing alarm at campus anti-Semitism, asking that the university confront this problem and adopt the State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism.

 The Israel-Palestinian debate has led to an atmosphere where many Jewish students who support Israel are often spending their college years in a climate of intimidation- not just from pro-Palestinian students, but in many cases from professors in the classroom.

The problem is not neo-Nazis or skin heads; rather it is the  pro-Palestinian lobby such as the Students for Justice in Palestine, BDS promoters, and their faculty allies. Every year, these groups invite speakers to campus, some of whom  cross the line from legitimate criticism of Israel to  attacking Jews as people. Over the years here I have seen and heard it first hand right here on this campus.

I thought that the regents were going to consider adopting the State Department definition of anti-Semitism. Are you instead going to pass some vague resolution opposing intolerance in general?  That would be useless.

 I ask you as a concerned Gentile to treat anti-Semitism with the same seriousness as you treat intolerance against other groups."

There were about 50 people listed to speak, some of whom didn't show up. I would say over half of the speakers were from the Jewish side. Tammi Rossman-Benjamin of the AMCHA Initiative spoke as well as several Jewish students including the president of Anteaters for Israel. I noted that one speaker from the other side was from the National Lawyers Guild in Los Angeles. A couple were from Jewish Voice for Peace including former B actress Estee Chandler (Don't ask me what movies she was in. I had never heard of her.) . Later, while the regents were discussing some inane topic, I was whispering with my friend and she turned around to give us the "shhhh" I told her to shut up. She did it with other people as well.

But I digress.

After the comments from the audience, there were a couple of other issues discussed, one of which was sexual assault. I will deal with that in a separate posting. As for the issue we were all there for, there was a presentation by UC Provost Aimee Dorr and Vice Provost for Diversity and Engagement Yvette Gullatt, who were responsible for drafting the proposed statement of principles. Dorr said they had decided not to identify specific victim groups out of concern over inclusion. (I am paraphrasing.) Gullatt explained that the statement defined intolerance. Their comments were quite forgettable.

What was interesting were the comments by the regents who weighed in after the public comments. Most of them who spoke made it very clear that they felt the draft essentially said nothing and that there was a responsibility to specifically address the issue of anti-Semitism since it was the Jewish students and community who brought the issue forth. Here are some notes as to the regents who weighed in. ( I am paraphrasing.)

Norman Pattiz said that when he read the statement, he asked himself, "What is this? It doesn't say anything." He added that it was necessary to recognize those who brought this (issue) up. He said it was insulting to disregard them and that it was a disservice to them because it was they who brought the issue to their attention.

Bruce Varner said that the statement did not deal with the specific issues.

Bonnie Reiss said that while free speech was important, it was equally important to protect the students. She referred to the reported anti-Jewish incidents and said, "We hear you. We need to tell you we hear you." She added that  the statement did not do that.  Finally, she stated that the  political debate (Israeli-Palestinian)  had led to acts of hate against one group-the Jews.

Next was a student regent, Abraham Oved, a Jew. He opened by referring to the "flawed language". He noted that he had tried to consult with the authors of the statement but was rebuffed. He did not support the statement. It did not do justice to those victimized and he referred to those who ask why the UC campus climate is the way it is. Oved was very eloquent.

Next was the speaker of the California Assembly Toni Atkins. She opened by saying that both the assembly and the senate had asked (the university) to do more. She said that they could do better, hit the right points, and find the right balance.

John Perez, a former assembly speaker, said that the statement basically said nothing, and that he feared a whitewash which would't even mention anti-Semitism. He also added that when he was in the assembly, he met with many student groups (by ethnicity). He said that the only time he was met with resistance from the university was when he asked to meet with Jewish students. He was told he would have to meet the Jewish students together with other groups. He added, however that he did not support the State Department definition being applied to the university.

Deputy Regent Marcela Ramirez essentially said nothing of substance, just the usual politically-correct buzz words. She listed three important points for her-free speech, bigotry and education.

Richard Blum (husband of Senator Dianne Feinstein) said that if they didn't get this right, he was going to get complaints from his wife and added that punishment should be addressed. That was it.

Hadi Makarechian said he agreed with Blum as to punishment. That was it.

Janet Napolitano finished by basically saying nothing . She mentioned diversity and the need "to get it right." She said that not all would agree with the final product. She took no stand.

After all that, it was announced that "this was the beginning of a process", a consultative process to be performed by a working group of students, faculty, chancellors and stakeholders. It will be led by Regent Eddie Island.

That was it. The regents continued on with other business as  most of the audience left, some like me, to be interviewed by the news media. In my case, I was interviewed by the Orange County Register. I would also like to note that as I was leaving the room, the aforementioned speech monitor Estee Chandler was still sitting in the front row-and talking with a couple of her pals.

What does it all mean?

It appears that our efforts might produce some results, but it is too early to tell. I was quite encouraged by the comments of most of the regents who spoke on the issue. Whether the final statement will adopt the State Department's definition of anti-Semitism, I don't know. I suspect that it will contain some reference to anti-Semitism. My fear is that it will simply be a listing of all the -isms including anti-Semitism. That is not enough. Anti-Semitism on UC campuses dwarfs any other form of bias. It is the most serious, and it must be specifically addressed. I should also note that no representative from any other minority group spoke to express grievances.

And what a dressing down for the provost and vice provost. In my view, they deserved it. Their statement is a joke. The University of California is chock full of policy statements expressing opposition to all forms of bias. They have diversity and inclusion officials on every campus. What would this proposed statement add?

And what happened to Napolitano? She initially proposed adopting the State Department definition. Has she changed her mind? If so, why? We will have to wait and see on that.

9/11/2001 to 9/11/2015-what do YOU believe

What do you believe?

What makes up your foundation and what is it that you stand upon?

What will YOU do when confronted with the truth? Will you stand upon those truths even if costs you friends, family, a few hits or followers from your site? Some 'friends' on Facebook or other social media sites?

Can you look in the mirror each and every day and know who YOU are and stand upon YOUR beliefs?

None of us can ever forget 9/11/2001. No mater what you believe, I do not know ANYONE who was old enough and alive on that fate filled day who has forgotten or will ever be able to forget what happened. I knew people who died that day.

I sure as hell will never forget.

This from Cry and Howl. I am posting EVERY word as what has been written there will shatter the beliefs and foundations of some, infuriate perhaps even more and others will agree.

BTW, I agree with what you will read below. Call me what you will, do whatever you feel you must.

It is a Muslim invasion we are facing and has been for quite some time. Jihad comes in many forms but at the end of each day, jihad is jihad. This nightmare on top of what our own government has doing to us for way too long. PatriotUSA


Sept. 11, 2001 and the participants

I was going to post this tomorrow. But I’d rather get an early start making folks mad.

I’ve been thinking about this post for quite a while now. I post something about 9/11/2001 every year. Usually, I lose some readers, get bumped from being a contributor to other blogs, get railed on, called names and all the stuff that liberals are known to do. Thing is, they are conservatives berating me like a step-child.  I’ve been blogging for a pretty long time now … longer than some, not as long as others, and the tragic events of 9/11/2001 are just as vivid to me now as the day it happened.  Stevex09 was the name of my former blog. Actually, it was much more popular than humble Cry and Howl. The good folks, Sharon Rondeau and company, over at The Post and Email selected an article I wrote at Stevex09 for blog of the day. (here) That was a long time ago, at least it seems like it.

Okay, enough reminiscing.  Well, let’s get this out from the beginning … I’m what’s known as a “Truther.”  How the term came into use is a mystery to me. I do know it’s considered to be a derogatory slur, indicating a lack of intellectual prowess, and a “conspiracy theorist.” What I find rather curious is that it’s conservatives who blow a gasket and come apart at the seams at the suggestion that those within our government had something to do with 9/11/2001. I call to mind something Patrick Henry said, “We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth.”  The citizens of America have a genuine need to feel safe and secure. We want to think of those in the government as having everything in control. It only makes sense that people with a nefarious agenda would exploit that feeling of security. The very idea that there could be some in the government who are willing to sacrifice a couple thousand innocent people to implement an agenda is anathema to the ordinary citizen. Reasoning with the same logic we use in scrutinizing  the things team Obama has done is never allowed with 9/11/2001. Let me see if I can put this into perspective. Obama’s phony presidency has been plagued with scandal after scandal, almost too many to count. You can pick any one you like and know of a certainty Obama and company have done nothing but lie. In each and every scandal the story changes. The conflicting accounts are enough by themselves to know someone is hiding something. “The hard drive crashed and all emails were lost.”  “Oh, we found the emails!”  “A Youtube video is to blame for the Benghazi massacre.” “I learned about Fast and Furious a couple of weeks ago.” “I didn’t send or receive any classified material from my email account.”  “I never had sex with that woman.” “Well, yeah I did have sex with her.”

The evidence of lies and cover-up is in the ever-changing accounts. Ask any cop who’s investigating a crime. Noting discrepancies is a basic investigative skill and used to get to the truth.

We’re able to immediately recognize the lies put forth by Barack Obama and his team (we may not know the precise truth, but we do know what we’re being told isn’t it) in each and every scandal.  As much as it pains me, I think it’s only fair to apply the same reasoning with what happened on September 11, 2001. Oh, I know it’s been such a long time since that happened. Why can’t we just forget about it? If I remember correctly “Never Forget” became etched into the minds of the American people, all rallying to execute vengeance on those responsible.  But, many of us have forgotten. We’ve gone from blaming Muslim men and realizing Muslims are capable of plotting more attacks, to welcoming them into America and even teaching the virtues of Islam in our schools. We’ll recognize Muslim holy days and we’ve gone from a “church on every corner” in America, to a mosque in every corner. There’s no doubt that Muslims in general (no, not all) hate America, but those 19 hijackers were simply used as pawns.

I remember my very first thought when I watched the first building collapse … “Someone set off charges in the building!”  When the reports and various accounts began to come out I knew we were being lied to.

There are far too many contradictory accounts of 9/11/2001 to get into and point them out. But one doesn’t need them all to know team Bush lied, obstructed, underfunded the investigation and in this Texan’s view were at the very least complicit in the attacks.

Here’s a quote by Mr. G.W. Bush shortly after the tragic events of 9/11/2001 …
“Nobody in our government, at least, and I don’t think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale.”

Well, Mr. Bush, using a keen ear, I detect a discrepancy in that statement. You’re telling us that in the Bush government and the eight years of the Clinton government no one envisioned flying airplanes into buildings. That doesn’t jive with this:
On the very morning of 9/11/01, five war games and terror drills were being conducted by several U.S. defense agencies, including one “live fly” exercise using REAL planes. Then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers, admitted to 4 of the war games in congressional testimony — see transcript here or video here (6 minutes and 12 seconds into the video). Norad had run drills for several years of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, and “numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft”. In other words, drills using REAL AIRCRAFT simulating terrorist attacks crashing jets into buildings, including the twin towers, were run. See also official military website showing 2000 military drill, using miniatures, involving a plane crashing into the Pentagon .Indeed, a former Los Angeles police department investigator, whose newsletter is read by 45 members of congress, both the house and senate intelligence committees, and professors at more than 40 universities around the world, claims that he obtained an on-the-record confirmation from NORAD that ON 9/11, NORAD and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were conducting a joint, live-fly, hijack exercise which involved government-operated aircraft POSING AS HIJACKED AIRLINERS. And I find the following rather suspect:Interestingly, Vice President Cheney was apparently in charge of ALL of the war games and coordinated the government’s “response” to the attacks. See this Department of State announcement; this CNN article; and this previously-cited essay.And while the government has consistently stated that it did not know where the aircraft were before they struck, this short video clip of the Secretary of Transportation’s testimony before the 9/11 Commission shows that Cheney monitored flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon. How could one of the most heavily-defended buildings in the world have been successfully attacked, when the Vice President of the United States, in charge of counter-terrorism on 9/11, watched it approach from many miles away?

For the attacks on 9/11/2001 to be successful there needed to be simulated attacks to create enough confusion as to what was real and what wasn’t. HERE is some interesting stuff.

And here is some interesting stuff …
Condoleezza Rice  5/16/02 … “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.”
But the truth of the matter is …
On August 6, 2001, the President (Bush) personally “received a one and a half page briefing advising him that Osama Bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the U.S. and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane.” In July 2001, the administration was also told that terrorists had explored using airplanes as missiles. (NBC, 9/10/02; LA Times, 9/27/01
“Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us, I would have used every resource, every asset, every power of the government, to protect the American people,” Bush said at a New Hampshire campaign stop, appearing with Cheryl McGinnis, the wife of a pilot killed in the attacks. (HERE)

With all due respect Mr. Bush, you’re a liar.
Folks, unless the people over at the BBC are wizards and can see into the future, why would they report that World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed … about 30 minutes before it did?

We all know the story … planes hit the buildings. Fires started, weakened the support beams and bingo, the buildings collapsed under the weight. Let’s see, two planes = three steel framed buildings collapsing. Man, I think the builders of tall buildings should update their building codes. But, they haven’t. We got some new buildings, same codes. Hey, not to worry. Just don’t start a fire in your trash can.

There seems to be an inordinate number of coincidences regarding the events of that day. Take for example the fact that fire has never (before 9/11/2001) caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Yet we’re to believe that fire collapsed three in one day.  Oh, I know that there are those who claim the damage from the airplanes combined with the fire brought the buildings down. But that’s nonsense:
The towers were designed to withstand the impact of airliners about the same size as Boeing 767s.[5] Hyman Brown, the construction manager of the Twin Towers, said: “They were over-designed to withstand almost anything, including hurricanes, . . . bombings and an airplane hitting [them]” (Bollyn, 2001). And even Thomas Eagar, an MIT professor of materials engineering who supports the official theory, says that the impact of the airplanes would not have been significant, because “the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure” (Eagar and Musso, 2001, pp. 8-11).
Two planes … three buildings.  Building #7 wasn’t mentioned in the Commission’s report. 571 pages and not one sentence about the collapse of Building #7.
David Ray Griffin explains:
The extreme difficulty of explaining the collapse of building 7—-assuming that it is not permissible to mention controlled demolition—has been recognized by the official bodies. The report prepared under FEMA’s supervision came up with a scenario employing the diesel fuel, then admitted that this scenario had “only a low probability of occurrence.”[67] Even that statement is generous, because the probability that some version of the official story of building 7 is true is the same as it is for the towers, essentially zero, because it would violate several laws of physics. In any case, the 9/11 Commission, perhaps because of this admission by FEMA, avoided the problem by simply not even mentioning the fact that this building collapsed.

Another coincidence most folks don’t know is …
The suggestion that explosives might have been used raises the question of how anyone wanting to place explosives in the towers could have gotten through the security checks. This question brings us to a possibly relevant fact about a company—now called Stratesec but then called Securacom—that was in charge of security for the World Trade Center. From 1993 to 2000, during which Securacom installed a new security system, Marvin Bush, the president’s brother, was one of the company’s directors. And from 1999 until January of 2002, their cousin Wirt Walker III was the CEO (Burns, 2003).
(emphasis, steve’s)
Those “Bushes” really get around don’t they?

One side note. There is a stark resemblance to how the governments of G.W. Bush operated and how Barack Hussein Obama’s government operates. Nearly 3,000 innocent people died on 9/11/2001. There were multiple security failures (if we believe any of the official report). Multiple incompetent acts and inactions and not one person was fired or punished. Obama’s terms in office has been rife with scandal after scandal. Many in which innocent Americans have died (think Navy SEAL Team Six. Ambassador Stevens. Brian Terry, on and on) and no one has been fired or punished.


I’m sick of the phony sad looks pasted on the faces of Bush, Obama, Clinton and the rest of the traitors occupying the office of the presidency and walking the halls of Congress. I’m sick of their phony attendances at the memorial services of those innocent people who were literally sacrificed so these insidious weasels can continue to build a world for us to live in. But one in which they won’t … one they want to rule.

And finally we have probably the most disgusting part (as if the complicity and participation of team Bush and the cover up by the media isn’t bad enough); the insider trading of those who knew of the 9/11 attacks in advance and profited …
Between September 6 and 7, the CBOE saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options. Assuming that 4,000 of the options were bought by people with advance knowledge of the imminent attacks, these “insiders” would have profited by almost $5 million.
  • On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were bought on the Chicago exchange, compared to only 748 calls. Again, there was no news at that point to justify this imbalance; again, assuming that 4,000 of these options trades represent “insiders”, they would represent a gain of about $4 million.
  • [The levels of put options purchased above were more than six times higher than normal.]
  • No similar trading in other airlines occurred on the Chicago exchange in the days immediately preceding Black Tuesday.
  • Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co, which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 2,157 of its October $45 put options bought in the three trading days before Black Tuesday; this compares to an average of 27 contracts per day before September 6. Morgan Stanley’s share price fell from $48.90 to $42.50 in the aftermath of the attacks. Assuming that 2,000 of these options contracts were bought based upon knowledge of the approaching attacks, their purchasers could have profited by at least $1.2 million.
  • Merrill Lynch & Co, with headquarters near the Twin Towers, saw 12,215 October $45 put options bought in the four trading days before the attacks; the previous average volume in those shares had been 252 contracts per day (a 1200% increase). When trading resumed, Merrill’s shares fell from $46.88 to $41.50; assuming that 11,000 option contracts were bought by “insiders”, their profit would have been about $5.5 million.
  • European regulators are examining trades in Germany’s Munich Re, Switzerland’s Swiss Re, and AXA of France, all major reinsurers with exposure to the Black Tuesday disaster. (Note: AXA also owns more than 25% of American Airlines stock, making the attacks a “double whammy” for them.)
HERE is more.

Link to post over on C&H is here.

Tags: 9/11/2001, Bush, Clinton, Obama, NWO, Inside job, Truther, Conspiracy theory, Betrayal, Liars, Islam, Jihad. To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

Shameful 9-11 Revisionism in Academia

Gary Fouse

Hat tip Paul Sperry and Creeping Sharia

"Poems from Guantanamo-Detainees Speak"

The below article by Paul Sperry in the NY Post focuses on 9-11 revisionist classes being taught at the University of North Carolina and other universities. It is where students are taught that the worst single atrocity in US history should be blamed not on the actual perpetrators, but on ourselves.


And what is the University of North Carolina English Department doing with  "Post-colonial studies"? Answer: In order to accommodate America-hating professors like Neel Ahuja.

Hatem Bazian's Latest "ISIS Is Not Islamic Piece"

Gary Fouse

Hatem Bazian is a professor at UC Berkeley. When he is not agitating and making public speeches against Israel, he is complaining about Islamophobia. That means that part of his job description entails convincing the rest of us that the atrocities being committed by ISIS  have nothing to do with Islam. That leads him to write this latest piece for Lamp Post Productions, a site for American Muslim scholars and activists.


In this piece, Bazian condemns ISIS for their acts especially focusing on their practice of using sexual slavery of Yazidis and others. he criticizes their use of Islamic texts to justify their crimes. At the end, he goes into his predictable references of Western slavery, the invasion of Iraq, the of companies and yes,- those neo-cons like Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Pearle.

First of all, to the casual reader you might want to applaud Bazian for his strong condemnation of ISIS and their horrible acts. Yet, I note that only late in the article does he even mention the Qu'ran, preferring the term "classical sources". I would take that to mean the Ku'ran, the hadith and the sunnah. He also uses the term "Prophetic tradition", which I would take to mean the hadith and sunnah. Nowhere does he use the name Mohammad. Is he trying to avoid the reader thinking about what Mohammad would say or do about such practices? He does admit that the Qu'ran neither explicitly condones or condemns slavery, but conveniently omits those references to "those that your right hand possess", references to a Muslim man having sex with captive/slave women.

Another point that Bazian omits is that Mohammad is considered the ideal man by Muslims. Whatever Mohammad did is the ideal to strive for. The Qu'ran is the word of Allah according to Muslims, transmitted to Mohammad the Messenger through the angel Gabriel (Jibril). And those references to the 55 Islamic countries that outlaw slavery? What Bazian forgets to mention are the Islamic Republic of Mauritania and Northern Sudan, which both still practice slavery-the only two countries in the world to do so. Thus, the following quote from the article is not completely true.

"The sources from the past are still available, with extensive records of cases pertaining to slavery, but the first question that must be asked is, what is the present-day ruling on slavery in the Muslim world? Slavery is prohibited, and only ISIS and its followers are calling for it to be brought back." 

And if Bazian thinks that only ISIS is engaging in rape and atrocities against non-Muslims, he might want to speak to non-Muslims in Egypt, Pakistan, Libya, Iran and many other Islamic countries where non-Muslim minorities are being persecuted-not to the extent of the Islamic State, but persecuted nonetheless. The plain fact is that in the Middle East as a whole, there is a systematic program of genocide against Christians in progress, which seems to have eluded Bazian's notice.

But to Bazian, in the end, it is always the fault of the West and the US in particular that the Islamic world is in flames. To be fair, it is not unreasonable to argue a causal connection between our overthrow of Saddam Hussein and ISIS. But what would have happened had the Iraqis themselves overthrown Saddam?  The Libyans (albeit with Western help) overthrew Qaddafi, and look at the result there. What will follow in Syria if and when Assad falls? If ISIS prevails, will that be solely the fault of the West? 

And as to those references to Wolfowitz, Pearle and the "neo-cons', Bazian knows full well this is code language for-you guessed it- the Jews.  As the Nazis used to say, "der ewige Jude"-the eternal Jew.  Of course this is the same man who reportedly told a college audience a few years ago they should count the Jewish names on the campus buildings. This is the same man who once called for an intifada in the US.

Nobody wants to hold all Muslims accountable for ISIS. Yet we cannot ignore what is happening to Christians, Yazidis, Shia and others who are being butchered like cattle in the Middle East in the very name of Islam. We have every right to discuss this phenomenon and the origins of Islam to figure out why this is happening and why we are all at risk. It is not enough to condemn the savagery of ISIS. Bazian tells us not to blame Islam. Then who are we to blame as more and more Western Muslims answer the call to join this evil movement called ISIS? If you read the "classical texts" and the "Prophetic tradition", you just might conclude that ISIS is following the pure Islam as Mohammad saw it the day he died.

Bazian concedes that Muslims throughout history have practiced slavery and rape,( as have followers of other religions). Yet he contends that their rationalizations for these actions based on religious texts are erroneous. Unfortunately, ISIS can point to specific verses and sayings in the Qu'ran, hadith and sunnah that provide their "justifications" . But in a broader sense, can we not agree that when an ideology demonizes and de-humanizes groups of people (as the Qu'ran, hadith and sunnah do with non-Muslims) then murder and other violations of human rights are only a step away?

Are the Walls Closing in on Hillary Clinton?

Gary Fouse

Hat tip to Funny Facts and Fiction-and Bruce

It appears that Hillary Clinton may have violated multiple laws during her tenure as secretary of state in relation to her handling of emails.


If we are to believe her protestations that she never sent or received classified material, marked or not, on her private server(s)-which she used exclusively instead of the State Department server- then we are to believe that Clinton was a mere figurehead as secretary of state, occupying a ceremonial position, if you will.

In addition, if everything is present and accounted for, where are the emails pertaining to Benghazi, before during and after the attack? Where are the emails pertaining to countries and private companies seeking favorable decisions from the State Department as they were contributing to the Clinton Foundation and hiring Bill Clinton to give speeches worth hundreds of thousands of dollars?

I am putting my trust in FBI Director James Comey to direct his agents to do a thorough and complete investigation. If they determine that serious laws were breached pertaining to our national security and that Hillary Clinton and her aides engaged in obstruction of justice as well by trying to cover it all up, they will need to get Justice Department approval (the attorney general herself) to bring charges. I would also anticipate that the attorney general will have a sit-down with President Obama before giving such authorization.

It will come down to a question of whether everyone is truly equal in the eyes of the law.