Pennsylvanians know about the Islamic symbolism in the Flight 93 Memorial, and have stopped donating. The first indication came last September when State Senator Jane Orie came aboard as a fundraiser. She got a quick education in growing controversy.
In a 9/11 radio interview with Pittsburgh talker Fred Honsberger, Orie explained why she hoped the Flight 93 families would get back together and revisit their design choice:
Orie: “No matter who it is, and no matter where I went today for 9/11 events, everybody brought up this crescent. Whether it is intentional or not, it is disturbing to people.”
Honsberger: “So everyone is bringing it up to you.”
Orie: “Absolutely.”
At that time, the Memorial Project had collected about $12.5 million, far short of the huge design’s anticipated 60 million dollar price tag. Six months later the amount sits at “A little more than $12 million.” It is possible that they are actually spending more on their fundraising efforts than they are raising.
Bill Steiner, who has been rustling up opposition on the ground in PA, dropped by Somerset recently and had a conversation with Memorial Project Superintendent Joanne Hanley. She appeared beleaguered, and confided that fundraising was sluggish, suggesting that the memorial would probably have to be built in stages. Presumably she meant something other than the normal stages of building, but was anticipating delays.
Now this week the Somerset Daily American has an editorial complaining that the whole state seems to be dumping on Somerset County, bemoaning amongst other things the lack of funding for the Flight 93 Memorial.
This is not the preferred way to stop architect Paul Murdoch’s terroist memorial mosque from being built. The damn thing ought to just be stopped by those in government who are in a position to stop it, so that a new and fitting design can be selected. At that point, money will be needed, but for now, with Murdoch in full command of the hijacked memorial, lack of money is what is needed. Starving the engines of fuel is one way to keep the hijacker from reaching his target, and until the hijacker is stopped, nothing else matters.
The people get it, and are voting with their pocketbooks. When are our our elected representatives going to step up and do their part?
Senator Orie is not the only Pennsylvania state legislator who has expressed concern, but Congressman Tancredo is as yet the only politician to actually call for the crescent design to be scrapped. If our representatives can’t be leaders, can’t they at least be followers?
To join our blogbursts, email Cao (caoilfhionn1 at gmail dot com) with your blog’s url.
Dr. Daniel Griffith (”anything can point to Mecca, because the earth is round“) is still trying to convince the press that the Flight 93 crescent does not point to Mecca. In an email to the Park Service and the press this week, he tried to make it sound as if Alec Rawls is calculating the orientation of the crescent by using techniques that can be manipulated to achieve any desired result:
Based on Alec’s arguments, one could claim that the memorial is oriented toward the Vatican.
The Flight 93 crescent can indeed be seen as pointing to the Vatican, for the simple reason that the Vatican sits on the great circle line between the crash site and Mecca.
This is what Griffith represents as some concocted method for calculating the orientation of the crescent: the great circle method!
This “shortest distance” or “straight line” direction to Mecca (curving only in the over the horizon direction) is the relevant direction because this is the way that Muslims calculate the direction to Mecca. (There was a debate about it in the 1980’s and 90’s, largely settled by this nondescript looking analysis.)
Here is the great circle line from the Flight 93 crash-site to Mecca:
(Click-pic for larger image. Great circle calculator here.)
Here is the great circle line from the crash-site to the Vatican:
This calculator rounds to the nearest degree, so Mecca and the Vatican both are presented as lying on the great circle line that, from the crash site, proceeds 55° clockwise from north.
Of course a person who faces Mecca is also facing everything else that happens to lie in the direction of Mecca. When Griffith acknowledges that the crescent points to the Vatican, he is not debunking of the Mecca-orientation of the Flight 93 crescent, but confirming it.
Reductio ad Hitlerum
Griffith pulled the same trick last July, telling reporter Kirk Swauger of the Johnstown Tribune Democrat that the crescent can be seen as pointing to a Nazi concentration camp if you want:
Griffith said Rawls suggested memorial organizers would be outraged if the crescent pointed to a Nazi concentration camp instead, the professor said it actually could be done.
Of course Rawls never suggested that anyone should care if the crescent pointed at a concentration camp. Is there a worldwide religion of facing Nazi concentration camps for prayer? Was Flight 93 hijacked by people who face Nazi concentration camps for prayer?
An unpublished report that Griffith wrote for the Pittsburgh Tribune Review in 2006 clarifies his concentration camp reference. It notes that there was a Nazi concentration camp (Drancy) located just outside of Paris, which as you can see on the maps above is also (like the Vatican) on the great circle line between the Flight 93 crash-site and Mecca. In his 2006 report, Griffith acknowledges that the crescent points to the Drancy camp, yet is still unwilling to acknowledge that it points to Mecca. Somehow, the crescent points to everything on the line to Mecca except Mecca.
When Griffith told Swauger that you can see the crescent as pointing to a Nazi concentration camp if you want, he was clearly trying to mislead Swauger into thinking that you can see the crescent as pointing wherever you want. This dishonest intention was made clear by another statement that Griffith made to Swauger (not reported by Swauger, but related by Swauger to Alec Rawls at the time). Griffith told Swauger that: “You can face anywhere to face Mecca.”
He is doing the same thing when he tells the Park Service now that the crescent can be seen as pointing to the Vatican, without being clear that this is because the Vatican sits on great circle line to Mecca.
Pecksniff
In his email, Griffith complains that Rawls has been trying to bully him into changing his analysis. Nobody is trying to bully Griffith into changing anything. We are trying to expose him as a fraud.
Griffith is practically in tears about being called a Pecksniff (a character from Martin Chuzzlewit “who lies and cants whether he is drunk or sober”). It is the perfect epithet. Look in the dictionary under Pecksniff and you will see Daniel Griffith’s picture.
Not that anyone should bother to read Griffith’s email, but if anyone wants to, it puts front and center another astounding example of Griffith’s free-form dishonesty.
Griffith quotes Rawls’s January 2006 report to the Memorial Project as saying that:
…the orientation to Mecca “take[s] a short cut over the North Pole … even though Mecca is south of Shanksville.”
From this supposed quote, Griffith goes on to construct an elaborate fantasy about how, since the great circle line between the crash-site and Mecca does not actually go over the North Pole, it was really Rawls, not he, who started this idea that you can face different directions to face Mecca.
But Rawls’s report to the Memorial Project did not say that a person facing the north pole from the crash site is facing Mecca. Rather, it includes an aside explaining why the shortest-distance line to Mecca “points in a northeasterly direction” (not due north), even though Mecca is south of Shanksville. The reason is because both are in the northern hemisphere. To illustrate, the report includes the simplest possible example: “The shortest distance between points on the opposite sides of the northern hemisphere will take a short cut over the North Pole.”
Griffith quotes only the second half of this sentence, omitting the part about connecting points “on the opposite sides of the northern hemisphere.” That allows him to pretend that the points referred to are the crash-site and Mecca. Of course Shanksville and Mecca are not on opposite sides of the hemisphere. Mecca is about 2/3rds of the way around the hemisphere from the crash-site.
Having misrepresented Rawls as saying, not just that a person facing into the giant crescent is facing Mecca, but also that a person facing due north from the crash site is facing Mecca, Griffith then writes:
I fail to be convinced that only 2, rather than the infinity of possible, arcs are acceptable to Muslims.
Bwahahahaha! Griffith just finished saying how wrong it is to think that a person facing north from Shanksville is facing Mecca. Then he turns around and uses this face-north-to-face-Mecca claim (misattributed to Rawls) as justification for saying that a person facing any direction is facing Mecca. Just how much peck has this idiot been sniffing?
To join our blogbursts, email Cao (caoilfhionn1 at gmail dot com) with your blog’s url.
Maj. Steve Coughlin, the expert on terrorism who was fired from the Pentagon at the behest of a jihadist mole, is back to work, and with a well-deserved promotion. Great news!
But we still have some work to do - we need to hold our officials’ feet to the fire, so that they do a thorough housecleaning at the Pentagon to remove Hesham Islam and other jihadist moles, along with those who aid and abet their careers.
I love good news and this is a very good news story. Coughlin was not only saved, he was promoted. Score one for the free world. By the way, where’s Heshie?
The Congresswoman has been investigating the reported firing (see here, here, here) of Major Stephen Coughlin (USAR) by the Department of Defense (DOD) Joint Staff.
First and foremost, Rep. Myrick confirms that Major Coughlin will now be retained by the DOD, and “…associated with another office program within the Office of the Secretary of Defense where he will continue to spread his message.”
The Congresswoman, one of the handful of stalwart individuals on jihadism in either the House or Senate, also highlights in her statement, the seriousness of what she terms, “…the nature of the radical Islamist enemy that we face today and how they are seeking to infiltrate all elements of our society.”
Rep. Myrick further lavishes deserving praise upon Major Coughlin’s thesis, “Major Coughlin’s
thesis must be read by everyone responsible for ensuring the safety of America,” for which we now learn he has been retained, and arguably even promoted, within the DOD.
But Congresswoman Myrick’s statement also evidences a curious if not disturbing cognitive dissonance about her expressed concern over jihadist “infiltration,” when it comes to Hesham Islam. Specifically, the Congresswoman:
without adducing any hard evidence to contradict Bill Gertz’s steadfast, repeated allegations blithely dismisses Hesham Islam’s putative role in Coughlin’s reported travails,
including the failure torenew Coughlin’s original contract, i.e., his reported firing
and ignores Mr. Islam’s intellectually shoddy, unhinged 1992 thesis which epitomizes the bigoted and paranoid jihadist tendency to frame any efforts to counter jihad encroachments in the Middle East, in particular, as the machinations of a nefarious Jewish cabal
Sadly, Rep. Myrick apparently chooses to ignore a man who seems to embody the very process of “infiltration” about which she claims to be so concerned.
Let me start by saying that I don’t care one whit who wins Serbia’s election for president. I am an American and the US is my country, not Serbia. As far as I am concerned, Serbian citizens have as much right to elect “a savior” or “an idiot” as we Americans do (and will do in the near future), and no other country (or countries) calling themselves “progressive democracies” have any right whatever to interfere in their election process.
However, this is NOT what is happening with Serbia. Western leaders, impatient with the Serbian election process, are acting like a bunch of bullies by trying to force Serbia’s citizens into electing the West’s “chosen one” candidate, Boris Tadic, and unfortunately, the Western media (both print and internet) are cooperating in this extortion.
“the singer now appears to support Tomislav Nikolic, the eurosceptic nationalist candidate of the Serbian Radical Party (SRS), who won the first round of the Serbian presidential elections last Sunday (20 January). Ms Serifovic participated in rallies organised by Mr Nikolic, including one in December in the Serbian town of Kragujevac and one on 15 January in Belgrade, singing her winning song, “Molitva” (Prayer).”[SerbBlog note: Marija Serifovic is also an ethnic Roma, AKA “Gypsy”, so the title “nationalist” gets put in the proper context here. The EU wants to punish Serifovic for simply supporting a candidate who is not “pro-EU”.]
Then consider the following statements & news stories in recent days on Serbia’s hot-button issue “Kosovo”:
“Senior western diplomats say the precise timing now (on Kosovo’s independence declaration) depends on whether the next Serbian president is Boris Tadic, the pro-western liberal incumbent, or Tomislav Nikolic, a pro-Russian nationalist…..If Nikolic, the conservative, gets elected, then no one in Europe will see any benefit in waiting any longer with the independence declaration….If Mr Tadic returns to power, however, diplomats say EU states would see merit in delaying Kosovo’s independence by a few weeks, seeking to flesh out an agreement on closer EU-Serbian relations”
“Kosovo will declare independence from Serbia with Western backing the weekend after the February 3 Serbian presidential election if the nationalist candidate (Nikolic) wins, political sources said on Wednesday. “If (Tomislav) Nikolic wins, it’s the 9th or 10th,” one of the sources told Reuters on condition of anonymity….If pro-Western incumbent Boris Tadic wins the closely-fought race, Kosovo Albanians would be expected to wait until the following weekend, and possibly until after a meeting of European Union foreign ministers on February 18, the source said. The West is “pushing for February,” the source added. The United States and major EU powers are trying to “coordinate” a declaration of independence by the Albanian majority province after almost two years of negotiations with Serbia ended in failure in December.”
I like that last line in the Reuters story — “after almost two years of negotiations with Serbia failed”. To anyone who has been following this story for the last “two years”, there were absolutely NO “negotiations” between Serbia and the Albanians on Kosovo. Both Condoleeza Rice and President Bush had already released statements months before these “negotiations” began, saying “Kosovo will become independent”, and they simply continued that same drumbeat through out the sham meetings between Serbia and the Kosovo Albanians . What that created was a sad display with Serbia on one side of the table, turning itself inside out to give the Albanians anything they wanted short of handing over their sovereign Serbian territory, and the Kosovo Albanians on the other side of the table, (with their US and EU backing) basically “buffing their nails” until the so-called “negotiations” were over, because the Albanians knew that the West had already committed to legitimize the theft of Kosovo. So why bother to even call it negotiations when the US & EU had already decided the outcome, beforehand? So that the uninformed, stupid or the corrupt, could believe and promote our US & EU governments’ lies when they say , “We tried, it failed, and then we had to do something”.
Now if the sham negotiations weren’t bad enough, the West isn’t even bothering to hide their extortion tactics anymore in the Serbian presidential elections. The message to Serbia’s citizens is clear, “Elect Nikolic and we will amputate Kosovo with a meat-ax soon, you will get no anesthetic and we will let the Albanians kill as many Kosovo Serbs as they want (and then blame it on you). Or elect “our man” Tadic and we might (if we feel like it) give you a couple of aspirin for the pain of amputating Kosovo from you and let a few more Serbs live.” It’s a “lose-lose” proposition for Serbia, as anyone can see — just as it is designed to be.
However, since the demise of Milosevic, all that Western intimidation of Serbia seems to have ever done is to drive Serbia closer to Russia. Russia’s support of Serbia in the UN Security Council on the Kosovo issue, and the Russian Gasprom deal signed with Serbia last week (which sunk the EU/US Nabucco plan and likely cost US State Department #3 man, Nicholas Burns, his job) has done more for Serbia than Western promises (and bombing) have done in the last 17 years. Combine this with the Serbian concept of “inat” (stubborn defiance in the face of bullies) and this all works in Nikolic’s favor, regardless of whether Nikolic is worth a damn or not.
But on the other hand, hope springs eternal in the human breast. For the life of them, Serbs still cannot understand why the US & EU would wish to continue punishing them and stealing their land. Serbs are Christians who speak multiple European languages and their kids want the same security & toys that other normal European kids have — and so do their parents. Based on this commonality, some Serbs believe that this torture has to stop soon — perhaps if they jump through just one more humiliating hoop then the West will see them for who they really are, perhaps if they elect just one more “pro-Western leader” then the West will recognize that Serbs ARE Europeans. This slim hope (or “wishful thinking”, depending on who you talk to) of one day maybe joining that EU “fun & goodies fraternity”, is all that Boris Tadic has to offer them. And the West knows this — which is why they had to throw in the ham-handed “club them if they don’t vote for Tadic” pressure to make the alternative even less attractive.
The big question that remains to be answered about this Western intimidation of Serbian voters to vote for Tadic in the upcoming run-off, is: “Will it work? Or will it backfire?”
Ultimately, Serbian citizens can (and should) be the ONLY ones to answer that, when they vote in the run-off election on February 3rd. It’s their fate to decide, not ours.
Program Director of the election monitoring agency Center for Free Elections and Democracy (CESID) Marko Blagojevic stated tonight that, based on 100 percent of the processed sample, it can be assessed that voters in Serbia entrusted Boris Tadic with another term in the office. Blagojevic stated that Tadic won some 2.6 % votes more than his rival Tomislav Nikolic and that difference is between 120.000 and 130.000 votes. Blagojevic announced that the turn-out was about 67% in the second round of presidential elections, which means some 4.5 million voters. Earlier, Executive Director of the CESID Zoran Lucic told the press conference that it can be stated that Tadic is the President of Serbia considering the big difference in the number of votes.
How can we possibly trust the outcome of a manipulated election?
The problem is that this election is already tainted. Once it has become so obvious that the US and the EU have an intense, vested interest in subverting an election in Serbia, how are we supposed to believe these US and EU politicians and “international observers” when they proclaim that this election is legitimate and clean?
From what was indicated by various interviews, polls, and so forth, before the runoff election, it was not at all clear that a majority of Serbs would have been willing to follow Tadic in taking the EU route.
EU membership is not worth the price
Take a good look at what’s happened in the EU lately. What with the Lisbon treaty chicanery, the bureaucratic strangulation, and the persistent sellout to jihadism, the EU is clearly turning into an ugly dictatorship itself. Maybe all of the noise that Western politicians and journalists make about Vladimir Putin supposedly being a “dictator” is only a distraction from the very real dictatorship that is taking shape in the EU.
I should be accustomed to this by now…
Like M.V. Pejakovich, I, 1389, am a US citizen, and I find it disgraceful that my own country’s government is manipulating an election somewhere else. It would be wrong no matter what the motives, but in this case, our own politicians are corrupt and they want to sell out the Balkans to petrodollar interests. It’s disgusting. But I suppose I ought to be used to it by now, considering how much vote fraud goes on in the US.
Yes, it’s very sad indeed. And although the decision is not mine to make, I would be sorry to see any more countries fall under the sway of the EU or of any organization like it.
Severing of Kosovo Province Enters the Final Stage with Boris Gump Reelected
Together with ecstatic long-winded congratulatory messages from the U.S. State Department, Javier Solana and the EU-presiding Slovenia to Boris Tadic and the “Serbian people”, after the Yellow leader barely squeezed through to get reelected as Serbian president, Serbia has received another, much more sincere, sobering message the very next day: that the illegal and unlawful EU mission to southern Serbian province of Kosovo-Metohija has been approved by the EU.
One doesn’t really need to read between the lines to realize Western leaders have breathed a huge sigh of relief certainly not because they were concerned for Serbia’s wellbeing, but simply because they understand Tadic’s razor-edge victory as a green light to proceed with the final stage of their plan of amputating Kosovo province from the rest of Serbia.
According to Tanjug, which cites its sources within the EU in Brussels, the European Union adopted on Monday, in an “urgent procedure”, a document dubbed “Joint Action” on the “legal and financial bases for sending a EU mission” to Kosovo and Metohija. Since the procedure was so urgent, one has to wonder if the EU heads were only waiting for their own candidate for Serbian presidency to declare victory, eager to push the approval of the Ahtisaari-planned EU mission through on the very same day.
Serbian news agency reports that only “a single formal step remains” until the EU mission is sent to Kosovo — a decision by the Council of Ministers on the adoption of the “Operative Plan” which gives the go-ahead for sending the mission. The mission would be dispatched only a day after the “Operative Plan” is adopted.
All this despite Serbian government’s firm opposition to sending the EU mission without an adequate UN Security Council decision, since on its own, the mission has no legal basis and it directly represents the first step of the implementation of rejected Ahtisaari plan on “supervised independence” of southern Serbian province.
But the EU now believes it doesn’t need a UN SC approval, or the approval of the Serbian government, since the man who refused to put his signature on a document that articulated unambiguous opposition to the EU mission being sent to Kosovo, offered to him by Prime Minister Kostunica in return for endorsement for the second round of elections, has been reelected anyway. And if Serbian president has no objections to the EU mission being sent to the territory of the country he’s sworn to protect, they figure that there are no obstacles to sending the mission.
“Serbian People” or Hungarian, Croat, Albanian and Muslim Citizens of Serbia?
The showering praises and gushing congratulatory messages that have poured from Washington, Brussels and Ljubljana when it was announced Tadic has managed to scrape a victory in Serbian presidential elections inevitably speak of “Serbian people” who have “chosen the European integrations” by giving their votes to Tadic.
EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana told reporters he had congratulated Boris Tadic and “Serbian people” on Tadic’s reelection, while Slovenians eulogized to the “Serbian people who have confirmed their support for democratic and European path of their homeland.” Although West’s collective desire to sell the whole deal as a Serbian choice is understandable, being that they desperately need to portray Tadic’s reelection as Serbian consent to the loss of Kosovo-Metohija province, the fact remains that Tadic’s narrow victory was neither a referendum on letting go of 15% of Serbia’s historic territory, nor the expression of the wish of predominantly Serbian nationals.
Understandably, all the praises ignore the fact that Tadic has barely managed to win by less than half percent above the necessary 50%, or 2.6 percentage points more than Tomislav Nikolic, which translates to a difference of around 100,000 votes between the two candidates. More importantly, they willfully ignore Serbia’s widely diverse, multi-ethnic society in which the sizable national minorities, such as Vojvodina Hungarians and Croats, as well as Presevo Valley Albanians and Raska (Sandzak) region Muslims (who call themselves “Bosniaks”) have voted in droves during the election runoffs, with the single goal: to prevent Tomislav Nikolic from winning.
One only needs to take a look at votes cast during the first round of elections, held on January 20, to find that the Hungarian representative, Ishtvan Pastor of Hungarian Coalition party in Vojvodina, was given almost all the votes that represent a difference between Tadic and Nikolic: 93,039 votes from Serbia’s ethnic Hungarians. At the same time, an equally marginal figure, Cedomir Jovanovic, backed by the Serbia’s Albanians and other Muslims as the only Serbian politician who supports severing of Kosovo-Metohija province, gained 219,689 votes two weeks prior to Tadic’s miserable victory. Everyone who knows the first thing about Cheda the Junkie and LSD LDP fanaticism knows fully well that they would rather pour gasoline over their heads and get collectively incinerated than see Tomislav Nikolic anywhere near a presidential office.
According to the local news sources, large communities of Hungarians and Croats populating mainly north of Serbia, have been pouring into the polling stations on Sunday, February 3, with military discipline, not so much to show support for Tadic, as to make sure Nikolic gets defeated. Some local TV stations have reported that “every single Hungarian in Vojvodina” voted against Tomislav Nikolic on February 3.
Meanwhile, according to Belgrade daily Glas Javnosti, British ambassador to Serbia Stephen Wordsworth allowed himself a luxury to publicly call the Albanians and other Muslims from Presevo Valley and Raska region to step up to the plate and cast their votes in order to ensure Nikolic loses the presidential bid. Readily responding, two Muslim parties from the Raska region have bragged about their help in defeating Nikolic on the very same day, announcing in the Serbian media that all the Raska Muslims “showed unity” by unanimously voting for Tadic.
British government has also financed CESID, a parallel structure to Serbia’s RIK (Republic’s Electoral Commission) to “count” the votes in the election runoff, and Stephen Wordsworth, the uncrowned king of cynicism, was among the first to congratulate “Serbian people” on the election results.
No Confusion in Kosovo-Metohija: Nikolic Wins Resounding 73.66% of Votes
How the actual Serbs voted is most obvious in the province of Kosovo-Metohija, where Albanians pretended no election whatsoever is taking place, so none of them took part, and where Tomislav Nikolic defeated Tadic with resounding 73.66% of votes won. Therefore, if the presidential elections in Serbia were a kind of “referendum” on the fate of Kosovo-Metohija province, Kosovo residents, whose opinion should matter far more than that of Novi Sad Hungarians, have stated their view in crystal-clear terms.
Crude EU Meddling in Serbia Elections
Right after the first round of elections, when Tomislav Nikolic surged to the top with 40% of votes won among 9 candidates, it became clear that “Serbian people” are determined to vote Boris Gump out of the office and replace him with the seasoned politician who places national interests above his personal or party-interests, and who has no intention to follow the foreign diktat, or tolerate West’s extortions, blackmails and rotten carrots.
Three days later, Reuters reporter Ellie Tzortzi noted the patently obvious EU interference in Serbian presidential elections, warning that “the EU must be wary of charges it is meddling to help pro-Western President Boris Tadic defeat nationalist Tomislav Nikolic, just as Serbia’s breakaway Kosovo province prepares to declare independence with the EU’s blessing.”
In order to boost Tadic’s prospects of defeating the challenger, the EU was prepared to offer Serbia the Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA)—considered the very doorstep to the full EU membership—on January 28, only few days before the scheduled runoff. Tzortzi quoted Danish Prime Minister as saying “it would be a good idea” to sign a formal agreement “before the second round of the Serbian presidential election to demonstrate the positive EU attitude,” and briefly mentions that such opinion was shared by all representatives of the EU-member states, including the EU leadership, except for Netherlands and Belgium.
When that failed, the EU heads devised a non-SAA “political agreement”, which is quite unique in the sense that no other country wishing to join the union was ever proposed anything similar and, more importantly, which offers no territorial guarantees to Serbia but, through some cosmetic, superficial benefits, such as relaxed visa regimes and trade conditions, intends to anesthetize the Serbs in order to sever their Kosovo province with less noise, mess and fuss. They announced this “offer” few days before the February 3 election runoffs, as something that will be available to Serbia for signing on February 7.
But the rotten carrot and British ambassador’s crude interventions in the midst of Serbian election were far from being the only ways the Western officials have been influencing the outcome of the presidential elections in Serbia. As Neil Clark aptly noted, “the US and the EU have made […] quite clear […] the consequences which would follow if the Serbs decided to elect the Radical Party’s Tomislav Nikolic […], a man they describe as “ultra nationalist”, as their country’s new President this weekend. If Serbia does not vote the ‘right way’, the country faces ‘isolation’ and will be treated as ‘the Belarus of Europe’, western officials have warned”.
Foreign-Owned Media in Serbia Unleash Ferocious Pro-Tadic, Anti-Nikolic Campaign
Serbian media, almost entirely owned by the German, British and American corporations, has been running a similar pro-Tadic, anti-Nikolic campaign throughout, reaching the fever-pitch after the first round of elections. Serbian citizens were exposed to toxic daily fumes generated by the numerous op-eds, articles and “analysis” extolling the virtues of joining the EU, while at the same time exploiting the fears of “going back into the 1990s” — the poverty, isolation and wars, even suggesting the possibility of economic sanctions and another round of NATO bombardment (?!). The choice, as presented by the Yellow party politicians and Soros-owned media in Serbia was clear: either the bright and sunny future in the European Utopia (Boris Tadic), or return to the dark and gloomy hellhole from the time of bruising sanctions, Western aggression and merciless punishment (Tomislav Nikolic).
Apart from the unrelenting media campaign almost without exception drumming up Tadic as the only acceptable candidate, the Yellow camp showed they are not above the basest, sleaziest tricks to help them stay in power.
Yellow Camp’s Sleaze
One of the slimiest moves of Tadic’s supporters was to invent the alleged “endorsement” of Russian President Vladimir Putin, as if he personally favors Tadic over Nikolic. Even though Russian leadership, in stark contrast to the Western officials, has demonstrated an admirable level of chivalry and non-interference in staying neutral all the way and allowing citizens of Serbia to vote according to their conscious, Tadic’s team understood fully well they urgently need every inch of support they can pry, so they brazenly manufactured Putin’s support.
Being that Kremlin office takes care of even the small details and niceties such as expressions of condolences, presidential birthdays, congratulatory messages and similar, and that Tadic’s birthday happens to fall on January 15, Tadic has once again received a birthday card from President Putin’s office, just like the year before and the one before that and every year since he became Serbian president in 2004. But, unlike ever before, this time around the entirely innocent, non-committal wish for a happy birthday that coincided with the election in Serbia, was fervently publicized and advertised throughout Serbia, as Putin’s personal endorsement of Boris Tadic in the presidential elections.
According to some reports, Tadic has fought tooth-and-nail to squeeze into the Serbian government delegation on the occasion of signing the agreement with Russian energy giant, Gazprom. Such an occasion, although immensely important for Serbian state, has in no way necessitated the presence of Boris Tadic, being that it was the deal worked out by the Serbian government and Prime Minister Kostunica and that members of Tadic’s party within the government were expressly against the agreement, almost ruining the whole deal if it wasn’t for direct intervention of the Serbian Premier. But, nevertheless, using and abusing every opportunity for catching some limelight and hijacking some of the credit for any positive development was a primal urge, capable of overriding any sense of common decency.
A Wretched Victory No One Would Wish
Add to all that a relentless smear campaign against Tomislav Nikolic (charged of using services of an American PR agency to “brush-up” his public appearances, a malicious lie that was quickly denied by the agency cited; accused of planning to assign a prime ministerial post to Vojislav Seselj, rotting in the Hague prison for five years while awaiting his “trial” for politically incorrect opinions and verbal offenses to start, etc.), the reports of Tadic’s supporters visiting Serbian voters in person, door-to-door, and offering paychecks in return for votes given to Tadic and payment of utility bills, or the delivery of insulting hand-out packages of flower, sugar and cooking oil given by the Yellows to the poor and disillusioned voters on the eve of the runoffs, and still, despite everything, Boris Gump has barely managed to scrape measly half percent above the margin to get reelected.
Apart from being overwhelmingly suspicious and quite questionable, Boris Tadic’s “victory” is probably the saddest, most pathetic and morally wretched feat no decent man would ever wish for himself. For who could possibly rejoice and celebrate the victory of a man widely expected to assist in cheerful dismemberment of a state he is supposed to serve and protect?
Maj. Steve Coughlin, the expert on terrorism who was fired from the Pentagon at the behest of a jihadist mole, is back to work, and with a well-deserved promotion. Great news!
But we still have some work to do - we need to hold our officials’ feet to the fire, so that they do a thorough housecleaning at the Pentagon to remove Hesham Islam and other jihadist moles, along with those who aid and abet their careers.
The firing of Maj. Steve Coughlin was an act of treason.
“Isn’t that a strong word to use?”
Yes, treason is a strong word, but it is also an accurate word to use in this context. His firing - officially, the nonrenewal of his contract - took place at the behest of Hesham Islam, who is both a special assistant to Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England and a jihadist mole. For more on that, see Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?
“Why is it treason to fire Maj. Coughlin?”
Because the firing of Maj. Coughlin deprives the U.S. military of vital information about enemy motives and intentions that it is getting from nowhere else. Firing Maj. Coughlin gives aid and comfort to the enemies of the U.S. by crippling the ability of the U.S. military to make sense out of the evidence it gathers of enemy activities.
“What was Maj. Coughlin trying to tell the U.S. government that was so important?”
His most important point is that the U.S. government is unwise to take Muslims at their word with regard to whether Islamic law and doctrine represent a danger to non-Muslim societies. Nor can we safely assume that terrorism and aggression committed in the name of Islam proceeds merely from a small minority of extremists who have hijacked and misinterpreted Islam, rather than from something inherent in Islamic law and doctrine that gives rise to such aggression.
Here I defer to columnist Jeffrey Breinholt to explain the details. Emphasis is mine.
Maj. Steve Coughlin has been in the news lately. Little of the attention has focused on his ideas – rather, it’s the intrigue surrounding the non-renewal of his contact as a briefer for the Joint Chiefs of Staffs that has been the focus, supposedly because he violated the sensibilities of the current climate. Meanwhile, his 300-page master’s thesis is posted on the website of the International Strategy and Assessment Center, where Maj. Coughlin and I are fellows. What does his thesis say?
My goal here is to summarize Coughlin’s main ideas. As in my “Muslim Brotherhood for Beginners” article from a few months ago, I am going to fight the temptation here to offer my own opinions, and instead just offer the facts, free of analysis, except on one issue. Coughlin has been characterized by some as a “Christian zealot with a pen.” I know Steve Coughlin. I occasionally have a drink with him. I know Christian zealots. H—, I was born in Provo, Utah. He is not one.
Maj. Couglin’s thesis, “To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad” was written in partial satisfaction for the requirements of his master’s degree. Coughlin is also a lawyer, though the thesis was written in the language of military strategy. To understand his argument, I find it helpful to view it through an American legal analogy.
Let’s say someone in the U.S. is accused of a serious crime. In addition to being innocent of the charges, the defendant also believes the crime itself is unconstitutional. This would raise the prospect of a two-pronged defense, and – because American law is so specialized – perhaps two types of lawyers on the defense team: (1) a trial lawyer who can mount a good defense on the factual allegations, and (2) a constitutional lawyer, who could prepare the appropriate motion to dismiss based on the theory that the crime violates the U.S. Constitution.
Each lawyer will focus on a different thing. Success by either could emancipate their client. Nothing stops the defendant from using both skill sets. If the defendant cares about his freedom and has adequate financial means, he would be remiss not to try both strategies.
Let’s now assume that the prosecutor, at the arraignment, assures defendant that the crime he is charged with is indeed constitutional. Should the defendant neglect to hire the constitutional lawyer? Clearly, the defendant should not take the prosecutor’s word for it. Instead, he would find someone more credible who understands the U.S. Constitution – not just what it says, but how it has been interpreted, to determine whether he has a constitutional defense.
Coughlin’s thesis makes a similar argument about Islamic doctrine, as it relates to how the U.S. military should fight the War on Terror. It is based on the notion that we must understand what motivates Islamic terrorists, in doctrinal terms. He describes this need through what is known as the Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB): the systematic, continuous process of analyzing the threat and environment in a specific geographic area. The IPB is designed to support the military staff estimates and decision-making.
The key step in the IPB is to align the enemy’s courses of action (COA) to its doctrine – that is, what motivates the enemy. Knowing the enemy’s doctrine is not the entire answer, because enemy COAs can be constrained by environmental factors. To predict how the enemy will act sufficiently for proper military planning, its pure doctrine needs to be “templated” (evaluated in light of constraining environmental factors). It is only through this IPB process of sizing up the enemy, and discerning between its pure doctrine and what is likely to do through “templating” to account for environmental factors, can proper military action – a collection of “friendly COAs” – be undertaken. It all starts, however, will knowledge of the enemy’s doctrine.
To Coughlin, the IPB in the War on Terror is being thrown off by what he describes as the “Current Approach”: the view that Islamic-based extremism is aberrant and that Islam has become a “religion hijacked.” To Coughlin, this view is pernicious in part because it is being pushed by those who claim that Westerners should rely solely on Muslims to tell us what Islam is, much like how the late Professor Edward Said attacked the notion that Westerners could ever understand what people in the “Orient” thought and how they behaved. Coughlin argues that the Current Approach represents an outsourcing of the information requirements that the IPB process is not structured to answer, much like a defendant taking the prosecutor’s word that the statute is constitutional. In American litigation, the resulting strategy will be based on input from people not aligned with the interests of the defendant. Applying this problem to the military challenge and the IPB, “Inputs into the decision-making process from the Current Approach are the product of borrowed knowledge from individuals and entities that may be either unknown or unbeholden to American national security interests.”
The consequences of uncritically accepting the Current Approach is the unstated corollary that because extremists do not represent “true” Islam, Islamic law itself should be excluded from analytical processes that support threat development. This tendency is culturally enticing to us, for we come from a tradition where arguments over the merits of particular religions are considered impolite (and impolitic) dinner party conversation. This tradition undoubtedly reinforces our inability to look closely at Islamic religious doctrine, and to look elsewhere for help. To add to this, we have Muslim intellectuals like Tariq Ramadan telling us (as he wrote a few weeks ago in the New York Times Book Review) that one cannot truly understand the Koran unless one goes at it with faith (“the language of the heart”). For this task, we must trust people like him. No wonder Ramadan is in such high demand.
Coughlin uses the IPB methodology to ask why we are not bothering to ask, “What if?” It is a powerful argument, if one accepts the IPB process itself, since there is no harm in asking the question – just as there is no harm in the criminal defendant considering the constitutionality of the crime while simultaneously planning a full defense on the factual merits. If, in planning military action, intelligence analysts limit their focus to factors that contribute to understanding the enemy’s doctrine, then the result of a rigorous inquiry that supports the Current Approach would ultimately be neutral to the threat assessment. If, on the other hand, the result is a finding against the Current Approach, we ignore the result at our peril since the IPB-driven process will not based on the proper inputs.
Coughlin’s thesis would be powerful if he just ended there, but he it does not. Instead, he searches through the prevailing views of all major schools of Islamic thought to argue “true” Islam – the type taught in the U.S. to 7th grade Muslim-Americans – requires its adherents to engage in violent struggle for worldwide domination, a state of affairs that cannot be adequately explained by the Current Approach. To get there, Coughlin considers the most definitive sources of Islamic law, including what they say about how Islamic doctrine is to be interpreted. It seems that much is settled in Islam, including what the faithful are required to do in the face of non-Muslims with whom they interact. He concludes that the purveyors of the Current Approach are selling us a bill of goods.
No wonder Maj. Coughlin found himself a disliked character in the halls of the Pentagon among the Muslim advisors who have the monopoly on telling us what Islam represents. He threatens their authority, as well as their livelihood.
Coughlin’s arguments about Islamic mandates make up the bulk of his thesis, but are ultimately unnecessary if one accepts his premise – that we owe it to the system to question whether the Current Approach is supported in Islamic law. What are the stakes? Even if the “true” Islam is a religion of peace, we would still need to know the doctrinal basis for the actions of those who have hijacked it, as long as they in fact exist and are able to motivate fellow Muslims to act at their direction. Consider this argument:
For the “extremist” argument to succeed, it simply has to assert a claim that has some doctrinal basis that survives the ideological screen because any surviving portion of the claim still leaves the “extremist” with a validated argument in support of the jihadis’ agenda. Hence, exclusivity is not an essential requirement for the “extremists.” The Current Approach, however, must be able to demonstrate exclusive correctness to the exclusion of the “extremist” position because the success of their argument can only be measured by the extent to which it constrains the “extremist” doctrine.
The problem, as Coughlin describes it, is that when the purveyors of the Current Approach respond to inconvenient Islamic law doctrines by claiming that there are “thousands of different interpretations to Islamic law,” they are saying there is no point to looking to Islamic law for solutions. In their oft-repeated claims that “Islam does not stand for this,” they are necessarily agreeing with Coughlin that there exists such a thing as Islamic doctrine, which necessitates our rigorous examination of it. For Current Approach arguments to succeed at neutralizing “extremist” positions, they must establish that “Islam does not stand for this” in every situation ranging through all interpretations. What are the prospects of that?
So in the end, it does not matter whether Coughlin is right about Islamic doctrine, as much as that the questions are being asked by people who are practicing the appropriate professional standards (another one of Coughlin’s key points). The U.S. government needs to ask these questions, rather than blithely concluding that Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by al Qaeda. Even if Coughlin is wrong about the big issues of Islam, he is certainly correct that military planners should be asking about the religious basis for al Qaeda’s actions, so we can better predict how the adherents of “radical Islam” can be expected to act. That is really what matters.
The consequences are failing to do so is illustrated by my legal analogy. The prosecutor has assured the defendant that the crime he is charged with violating is constitutional, presumably because he wants to focus on the facts of the case. For the defendant to not suffer a lost opportunity by taking the prosecutor’s word for it, the prosecutor must be legally correct about what the constitution says. Just as many prosecutors are not constitutional law experts, many Muslims are not experts in Islamic law. Even if the prosecutor is fortuitously correct on this particular constitutional question, few people would argue that the defendant should not hire someone to undertake the necessary research for him, since that is the essence of the adversarial process.
By the same token, for the IPB to deny the need for close examination of the religious doctrinal basis for al Qaeda’s actions is to throw the process itself off. The cost of this decision likely exceeds the benefits of claiming that Islam has been hijacked to win over those who may be susceptible to embracing a more extreme version of the religion. Even by articulating this benefit of the Current Approach, we acknowledge the existence of a radical strain of Islam that can get a hold of people and cause them to act in ways that threaten innocent lives. For us not to then consider the doctrinal basis for this view of Islamic law, and to take it on faith that Islam does not drive their actions, would be malpractice.
Maj. Steve Coughlin, the expert on terrorism who was fired from the Pentagon at the behest of a jihadist mole, is back to work, and with a well-deserved promotion. Great news!
But we still have some work to do - we need to hold our officials’ feet to the fire, so that they do a thorough housecleaning at the Pentagon to remove Hesham Islam and other jihadist moles, along with those who aid and abet their careers.
* Hesham Islam, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, with his ridiculously cooked CV, should have never been given a security clearance. Hesham Islam is your picture book mole:
Hesham Islam is responsible, according to earlier reports, for the firing of Stephen Coughlin, the Pentagon’s only expert on Islamic law. But now the questions about Islam himself, and what his intentions really are, are increasing.
Federal authorities say a high-level Muslim Pentagon aide, who led a campaign to silence a Pentagon intelligence analyst for taking a hard line against Islam, is running an “influence operation” on behalf of U.S. Muslim groups fronting for the radical Muslim Brotherhood.
Hesham H. Islam, a special assistant to deputy Defense secretary Gordon England, recently criticized Maj. Stephen Coughlin, one of the military’s leading authorities on Islamic war doctrine, for making the connection between the religion of Islam and terrorism.
After Islam lodged complaints, Coughlin’s contract with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon was not renewed.
Islam also was upset with briefings Coughlin recently prepared for the U.S. military warning that major U.S. Muslim groups were fronting for the Muslim Brotherhood, a worldwide jihadist movement based in Egypt.
Islam, who was born and raised in Egypt, is heavily involved with one of the groups – the Islamic Society of North America, which U.S. prosecutors last year named as a member of the U.S. branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and an unindicted co-conspirator in a major terror-funding case.
Islam has persuaded his boss, England, to conduct various outreach with ISNA, including hosting the group’s leaders in the Pentagon and speaking at its annual convention.
The Pentagon is looking into conflicting statements about the background of Hesham Islam, a special assistant to Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England who was the focus of a dispute with a Joint Staff counterterrorism analyst.
Mr. Islam faced tough questions about his background posed by veteran journalist Claudia Rosett, a former Wall Street Journal reporter who covered the United Nations oil-for-food scandal with Iraq. Last week, Miss Rosett took the Pentagon to task by uncovering serious discrepancies about the Egyptian-born Islam that no one at the Pentagon seems willing to answer.
Writing in National Review Online, Miss Rosett revealed that certain claims about Mr. Islam’s background don’t fit.
Shortly after she wrote about the discrepancies contained in a Pentagon-written article on Mr. Islam’s background, the Pentagon removed the biography from its Web site, DefenseLink.mil.
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said “that piece was taken down in an attempt to reduce the rhetoric and the emotion surrounding this issue while we try to determine the facts.”
The Pentagon does not comment on such personnel matters, he noted. “That said, we are looking into the matter and trying to reconcile conflicting statements.”
Mr. Morrell called later to clarify that the conflicting statements being probed relate to whether or not Mr. Islam used the term “Christian zealot with a pen” in describing Mr. Coughlin, and not about discrepancies in Mr. Islam’s background.
Mr. Islam has come under fire from supporters of Stephen Coughlin, the Joint Staff analyst on counterterrorism whose contract was not renewed. The action followed a meeting between Mr. Coughlin and Mr. Islam several weeks ago when the two clashed over Mr. Coughlin’s views on the Islamic law roots of terrorism.
After refusing comment to Inside the Ring, Kevin Wensing, a spokesman for Mr. Islam, now says that reports in this space that Mr. Islam called Mr. Coughlin a “Christian zealot with a pen” did not take place during the meeting.
Queries to other Pentagon officials familiar with the issue said the phrase was used by Mr. Islam after the meeting, not during it.
No action was taken against Mr. Islam, a Muslim adviser and confidant of Mr. England, for the anti-Christian comments.
Mr. Islam could not be reached for comment.
Miss Rosett tried — and failed — to get straight answers from Mr. Wensing about why Mr. Islam claimed that when he was 7 his family was bombed by Israeli jets at his home in Cairo, when there is no evidence the Israelis bombed the Egyptian capital during the 1967 war.
Also, Mr. Wensing could not explain why Mr. Islam said in his biography that he was on a freighter sunk by an Iranian torpedo in the Persian Gulf when there is no record of the ship being sunk.
According to his 1992 master’s thesis at the Naval Postgraduate School, Mr. Islam is highly critical of Israel and the influence of American Jews on U.S. politics, noting that U.S. ties to Israel have harmed relations to other states in the Middle East.
In 2007 Mr. Bush highlighted the aggression of “Sunni extremists” and “Shia extremists.” In 2006, he warned against “radical Islam.” In 2008, the president merely decried “assassins,” “bombs,” “extremists” and “terrorists.” Why the fuzzy focus? Why declare a “defining ideological struggle” without defining the ideologies involved?
Bill Clinton is responsible for the murder of countless civilians. His administration, the biased media, and the liberal left have hidden this fact from the American people. The shameful attack on Kosovo is one of the most important - yet least understood - events in modern Jihad. It is imperative that the truth is exposed.
The video below talks about the Clinton lies in regard to the Kosovo War. The first 2 minutes and 25 seconds are about Jesse Jackson receiving the Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award, and second only to the Medal of Honor. After that, Savage disputes all the lies the Clinton Administration told about the Kosovo War:
More on the Kosovo War and Clinton Lies:
Mr. Clinton says he wants peace through war, and has attacked a nation that is no threat to America or to any of its neighbors. The conflict in Kosovo has arisen because Slobodan Milosevic (like Joseph Tito before him) failed to secure Yugoslavia’s border with Albania. The resulting strife helped each of them centralize power. Worse than the deliberate obscuring of facts about the history of this conflict is that NATO’s attack has silenced the democratic critics of Milosevic and caused all Serbians (and increasingly, all Slavs) to rally to the defense of their embattled nation.
From 1960-90 Tito turned a blind eye as an influx of Albanians drove Serbs from Kosovo. The immigration was pushed by the Stalinist regime of Enver Hoxha that had reduced Albania to current penury and made it a pariah among nations. Since Hoxha, Albania has lacked government in any real sense. The main powers there have been the Saudis and Iranians. Its economy has consisted of arms and drug smuggling and a series of ruinous pyramid schemes and lotteries. This sordid history is available but ignored by major western media and governments who have abandoned national interests for a global agenda that finds ready allies in radical and expansionist Islam.
Nasser Rabbat, a Syrian professor of Islamic architecture at MIT, told the Park Service not to worry about the giant Mecca oriented crescent at the center of the Flight 93 Memorial. He said that since it does not point quite exactly to Mecca (it is off by 1.8°) it can’t be considered a proper mihrab (the central feature around which every mosque is built).
Liar. Many of the most famous mihrabs face as much as 20 or 30 degrees off of Mecca.
Here is another Rabbat deception:
Mosques are never in the shape of a crescent or a circle. This defeats the purpose of lining up the worshipers parallel to the Qibla wall (Mecca orientation), which usually translates into a rectangular shape, or sometimes a square. [From the White Paper released by the Memorial Project in August 2007.]
It is true that most mosques are rectangular, the more clearly to mark the direction to Mecca, but this is certainly not a requirement, given that the two most religiously significant sites in Islam are round mosques. Significant site #1 is the Sacred Mosque in Mecca:
Second most significant is the Mosque of Omar, also called the Dome of the Rock, on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, from which point Muhammad supposedly ascended into heaven:
Perhaps because of the prominence of these precedents, a small but significant number of mosques around the world follow the round model.
There is the Tun Abdul Aziz mosque built in Malaysia in 1975, referred to colloquially as the “Masjid Bulat,” or “round mosque.”
There is the new 5,000 person Arafat Mosque in Nigeria, which the architect claims is “the only round mosque in Africa,” but he is wrong. Another round mosque, Al Nileen, sits at the confluence of Blue and White Nile rivers in Khartoum:
[From Google Earth. Look up “alnileen mosque”.]
Africa is also home to some older round mosques. Here is a round mosque from the Ivory coast. Similar mosques have also been found in Sierra Leone.
Here is a modern Russian mosque, laid out in shape of an eight point star.
There is even a famous round mosque right in the heart of the EU, at the northwest corner of the Parc du Cinquantenaire in Brussels.
There is a round mosque in Kuwait, a round mosque in Kadavu India, and probably many more.
At the Islamic architecture website Archnet, a Muslim architect (not a native English writer) explains the problem with round mosques:
… a circular mosque can not function well because a mousqe should have an oriantation to kibla and as we all know that a circle does not have an orientation, How can we know the kibla wall if it is a circle ?
This problem does not afflict Paul Murdoch’s mosque design for the Flight 93 memorial because Murdoch’s giant crescent does create an orientation. Face into the crescent to face Mecca, just as with a smaller size mihrab.
Geometrically, Murdoch’s Crescent of Embrace is just a gigantic Islamic prayer rug:
A Muslim prayer rug is a two dimensional mihrab, laid out to face Mecca, just as the Crescent of Embrace is.
Notice that to a person looking into the Flight 93 crescent, the irregularity of the outer arc of the crescent is not visible. The radial arbors are all behind the double row of red maples that line the walkway. The ends of the crescent are also well defined by the end of the walkway of red maples at the bottom and the end of the thousand foot long, fifty foot tall Entry Portal Wall on top. This is a perfectly comprehensible and recognizable Mecca direction indicator.
Rabbat’s comments to the Park Service do not even pretend to be objective. He lists “talking points” in defense of the crescent design without ever even pretending to weigh the merits of the case against the design.
Most obviously, Rabbat never considers the almost exact Mecca orientation of the giant crescent as a grounds for concern, but limits his remarks to possible excuses for not worrying about this obviously worrisome fact. The same for all of his other talking points. He only even considers ways to absolve the crescent design.
In short, Rabbat is as overtly biased as he could possibly be, yet the Park Service has no qualms about this overt bias. Rabbat gives them the excuses for unconcern that they want and they eagerly embrace him. The Park Service investigation into warnings of an enemy plot was a total fraud.
Blog Directory
