Professor Says There Is No Anti-Semitism In Middle East

Hillary Mann Leverett, the Senior Adjunct Professorial Lecturer at the School of International Service at American University, told MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry recently that anti-Semitism doesn't really exist in the Middle East. No, really... she said that.

"Well, you know, if you look at Jewish communities in other places around the Middle East, there certainly was, after the creation of the State of Israel – and especially after the '67 war – an emigration of Jews from many of these Arab countries to Israel. But there still are Jewish communities. So, for example, there's a thriving Jewish community in Iran. And when I've talked about that, people say, 'Oh, that's so terrible. How can you say that? Of course, they're suffering.' Well no, I've actually been there. I've been to the kosher restaurants. I've been to the Jewish hospital in Iran."

"There is not this deep-seated Arab/Jewish or – you know, Muslim/Jewish animosity. There's not an anti-Semitism in the Middle East the way that there was in Europe, which is based on race; which is based on color; which is based on genes and biology. That doesn't exist in the Middle East. There's no history of that in the Middle East."

She was correct about one thing. There is not a deep-seated animosity between Muslims and Jews - on the Jewish side. The Jews just want to live in peace. If Muslims would leave them alone they would leave Muslims alone. The Palestinians would live in peace in Gaza if Hamas wasn't constantly attacking Israel.

Melissa Harris-Perry, being the brilliant host that she is, followed up Leverett's comments with "As horrible as it is, I somehow feel somewhat more optimistic, if this is a problem rooted in 1967, and not in the beginning of time in some way."

OK. Good point. No, wait...  what?

Professor Leverett obviously doesn't pay much attention for someone whose faculty page at the university says "her research primarily focuses on 'politics and international relations of the Muslim world, U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East, Persian Gulf, and Asia, diplomacy, international negotiation, and conflict resolution.'"

Does she not see, in her research, the verses in the Quran that condemn Jews? Does she not hear (past) leaders of Egypt and Iran, Mohamed Morsi and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who voiced their desire to "wipe Israel off the map"? Did she not hear Morsi once say Egyptians should "nurse our children and grandchildren on hatred for Jews and Zionists"?

Soon after taking office in 2013, Iran's new President, Hasan Rouhani said: "In our region there's been a wound for years on the body of the Muslim world under the shadow of the occupation of the holy land of Palestine and the beloved al-Quds (Jerusalem).  The Zionist regime has been a wound on the body of the Islamic world for years and the wound should be removed."

Does Leverett not know of the charter of the terrorist group Hamas? Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, "The Hamas credo is not just anti-Israel, but profoundly anti-Semitic with racism at its core."

"Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors," says one line of the actual charter. While that particular line itself doesn't contain anti-Semitic language - what other reasoning would Leverett give for Hamas wanting to destroy Israel? Perhaps she believes it's because Israel "occupies" the Palestinian State - the one that doesn't exist.

Various speeches have been made by Muslim scholars and preachers in recent years that call for the destruction of Israel, if not by Allah then "at the hand of the believers."

In January, 2009. Egyptian Muslim scholar and preacher Yusuf al-Qaradawi stated:

"O Allah, take your enemies, the enemies of Islam. O Allah, take the Jews, the treacherous aggressors. O Allah, take this profligate, cunning, arrogant band of people. O Allah, they have spread much tyranny and corruption in the land. Pour Your wrath upon them, O our God. ... O Allah, do not spare a single one of them. O Allah, count their numbers, and kill them, down to the very last one."

A few weeks later al-Qaradawi expressed his views on Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust:

"Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers."

Palestinian preacher Ibrahim Mahdi said in a sermon:

"Palestine will be, as it was in the past, a graveyard for the invaders – just as it was a graveyard for the Tatars and to the Crusader invaders, [and for the invaders] of the old and new colonialism.... A reliable Hadith [tradition] says: 'The Jews will fight you, but you will be set to rule over them.' What could be more beautiful than this tradition? 'The Jews will fight you' – that is, the Jews have begun to fight us. 'You will be set to rule over them' – Who will set the Muslim to rule over the Jew? Allah ... Until the Jew hides behind the rock and the tree. But the rock and tree will say: 'O Muslim, O servant of Allah, a Jew hides behind me, come and kill him.' Except for the Gharqad tree, which is the tree of the Jews. We believe in this Hadith. We are convinced also that this Hadith heralds the spread of Islam and its rule over all the land.... O Allah, accept our martyrs in the highest heavens.... O Allah, show the Jews a black day.... O Allah, annihilate the Jews and their supporters.... O Allah, raise the flag of Jihad across the land.... O Allah, forgive our sins...."

On another occasion Madhi stated:

"O beloved of Allah ... One of the Jews' evil deeds is what has come to be called 'the Holocaust', that is, the slaughter of the Jews by Nazism. However, revisionist [historians] have proven that this crime, carried out against some of the Jews, was planned by the Jews' leaders, and was part of their policy.... These are the Jews against whom we fight, O beloved of Allah. On the other hand, [what is our belief] about the Jews? Allah has described them as donkeys."

Ahmad Bahr, Deputy Speaker of the Hamas Parliament, stated in a sermon

If the enemy sets foot on a single square inch of Islamic land, Jihad becomes an individual duty, incumbent on every Muslim, male or female. A woman may set out [on Jihad] without her husband's permission, and a servant without his master's permission. Why? In order to annihilate those Jews.... O Allah, destroy the Jews and their supporters. O Allah, destroy the Americans and their supporters. O Allah, count them one by one, and kill them all, without leaving a single one.

I could go on and on but I think you get the picture. Professor Leverett apparently doesn't. She visited one Jewish settlement and a hospital in Iran and decided there is no such thing as anti-Semitism in the Middle East. One can't help but wonder what her definition of anti-Semitism is.

At least she was on the right network...

Michael Moore On How History Will Remember Obama

Michael Moore, the self-described anti-capitalism, far-left liberal, documentary film maker, said recently that Barack Obama will be remembered in history as being the first black President of the United States. That's it.

Moore, speaking in an interview with the Hollywood Reporter, spoke as if addressing the President himself when he said “When the history is written of this era, this is how you’ll be remembered: ‘He was the first black president.’ OK. Not a bad accomplishment. But that’s it. That’s it, Mr. Obama.”

He went on with his conversation with President Obama: “A hundred years from now - he was the first black American that got elected president.’ And that’s it. Eight years of your life and that’s what people are going to remember. Boy, I got a feeling, knowing you, that you’d probably wish you were remembered for a few other things — a few other things you could’ve done.”

Moore told the interviewer that Obama has been "a huge disappointment." It's not difficult to figure out why Moore is disappointed with Obama. The President hasn't rid the country of personally owned firearms, a personal dream of Moore's. Obama hasn't taken the troops out of Afghanistan soon enough. 

He commented on Facebook last month about the fall of Mosul and Fallujah not because of the barbarians that are ISIS but because "the trillions of dollars we spent there could be used for our schools instead." His stated belief about 9/11 is that we should have done nothing. 

Michael Moore isn't difficult to figure out. He's a typical, far-left, liberal hypocrite. Moore decries capitalism and the evils of wealth, even though he himself has a net worth of around $50 million. It seems so easy for uber wealthy liberals to condemn the rich even as they are members of the 1 percent themselves. And the average and lower income liberals see and hear it and applaud them for saying it - completely overlooking the obvious hypocrisy. 

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying Moore is wrong about Obama. I think unless history is changed (something Michelle Obama once said we need to do) Obama won't be remembered for much other than being black and a disastrous health care law. He may be remembered for his disastrous exits from Iraq and Afghanistan that allowed ISIS and other radical Islamic terrorists to create and maintain a large caliphate in the Middle East. But that remains to be seen.

Yeah - anyone who actually listens to Michael Moore would do themselves a great favor to educate themselves about the man. He might be right occasionally, as I think he is in this case, but mostly he's a liberal hypocrite. A rich one.

More On Obama's ISIS Speech

There are so many things wrong with what the President said the other night that I don't know where to begin.

First was his declaration that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (he calls them ISIL but I won't) is not Islamic. His rationale? "No religion condones the killing of innocents." Really, Mr. President? Have you been watching radical Islam for the last say... 20 years? Are you trying to tell the world that all of the terrorists who kill innocent people throughout the world in the name of Allah are not Muslims? I guess "Allahu akbar" isn't the Islamic phrase for "God is greater" or "God is the greatest"?

Second - President Obama said ISIS is not a state. I guess that could be true except that the President himself addresses them as ISIL, the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant. So if it's not a state, Mr. President - why do you keep referring to them as a state?

President Obama says he has the authority to attack ISIS on his own, without Congressional approval, using the provisions of the 2001 Authorization For Use Of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), signed into law by President George W. Bush immediately following the 9/11 attacks. As recently as last year President Obama was calling for the law to be repealed. On Wednesday he said he could unilaterally attack ISIS in accordance with that law he wanted repealed - before it became convenient for him.

To his credit he did say he would like Congressional approval for the action. I'm sure that's only because he wants to be able to blame them if something goes wrong.

The real problem with using AUMF authority is that the law doesn't really authorize the President to use force against ISIL. The beginning of the law reads as follows:

"The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

ISIS didn't exist in 2001. ISIS did not plan, authorize, commit or aid the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. So President Obama really does not have the authority to escalate the offensive against ISIS as he says.

Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry both refuse to say we are going to war with ISIS. Instead they say this is a "very significant counter terrorism operation." To boost President Obama's idea that he (Obama) can act unilaterally against ISIS if Congress won't approve such action, Kerry said “This group is and has been al Qaeda,” Kerry said. “By trying to change its name, it doesn’t change who it is, what it does.”

Really? I thought Al Qaeda was dead?

“The war in Afghanistan is winding down. Al Qaeda has been decimated,” President Obama said during a campaign rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin, November 1, 2012. “Osama bin Laden is dead. So we've made real progress these past four years.”

So which is it? Is ISIS now Al Qaeda or did the President lie...  uh, exaggerate just a bit during his 2012 campaign? I'll let you decide.

One thing is certain. Whatever Obama and Kerry choose to call it, dropping bombs on another country is normally considered an act of war - even if it's not declared.

Finally, President Obama has a way of telling our enemies what we are and are not going to do. It's a bad habit he has. He broadcast to the world (and the terrorists) when we would be completely out of Iraq and then, against the advice of all (or most) of his military leaders, he did just that. He pulled all of our troops out of Iraq without leaving a residual force in place. The experts say that's one of the reasons ISIS was able to grow so quickly - because they had no opposition, thanks to Obama.

Obama has told ISIS he is going to escalate the air campaign against them and that he will not be putting American boots on the ground to fight them. I'm pretty sure ISIS is not deterred much by the threat of more air strikes - but I'm pretty sure they're quite surprised to learn they're not Muslims.

Some people say we should stay out of this and let Islam sort it out. I disagree. So far the Muslim community as a whole has not lifted a finger to combat ISIS. Only the Kurds in Northern Iraq are challenging them and that's because ISIS is trying to conquer the Kurds. The other Islamic nations are sitting back and waiting until they are threatened directly.

The other reason we have to be a major part of the solution is because we were a major part of the creation of the problem. ISIS grew from the Al Qaeda backed rebels in Syria that President Obama, against the protests of Republicans, decided to arm against Bashar Assad. ISIS took advantage of the arms given them and not only decided to take part of Syria as its own but half of Iraq as well. We gave them arms, we funded them and we helped them grow. Obama called them the Junior Varsity team a few months ago - words he's had to eat in the last couple of weeks. (Of course, Press Secretary Josh Henry denied Obama was talking about ISIS in that statement - even though the question he was answering was directly concerning ISIS. It was one of those "Never mind what he said - that's not what he said" moments.)

ISIS is estimated to be 30,000 strong today. That's three times the original estimate of 10,000. They have captured banks in their occupied territories and have emptied them of their funds. They now control oil production plants as well. It is estimated ISIS brings in about $1 million a day. They don't need US funding anymore, obviously. But since we helped create the monster we should take the lead in destroying it.

Congress needs to step up and authorize the President to declare war on ISIS. The President needs to stop telling the enemy what he's going to do (or is not going to do.) And he needs to be prepared to put boots on the ground if necessary after the air campaign. You cannot destroy an enemy with bombs when they are spread out across two countries. No, I don't want another war. But ISIS is making it necessary. As has been said numerous times by those who are not blinded by liberal ideology: "We may not be at war with Islamic terrorists but they are at war with us."

Ferguson, Missouri - Justice Or Revenge?

It seems the incident of the Michael Brown shooting isn't going to go away anytime soon. Not that it should go away before the facts are known but what do the people of Ferguson want? They say they want "justice for Michael Brown" but what, exactly, does that entail? Isn't justice supposed to seek the truth and then mete out any punishment that is warranted? That doesn't seem to be the justice the protesters are seeking.

The governor of the state has already said Wilson needs to be prosecuted for the shooting - even before the investigation was days old. State Senators and County Representatives of African-American descent have been calling for Wilson's arrest and prosecution since the incident happened. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus have called for hearings on the shooting. And of course, Eric Holder not only sent about 40 FBI agents to Ferguson to investigate the shooting but he went himself to talk to the protesters and the Brown family members. He said he will be investigating the Ferguson police department "get to the bottom of mistrust of police."

"Our investigation will assess the police department's use of force, including deadly force. It will analyze stops, searches and arrests. And it will examine the treatment of individuals detained at Ferguson's city jail," Holder said.

Holder bases his investigation on statements made by people on the street in Ferguson. Since only a small percentage of the protesters seem to be Ferguson residents, I hope he vetted those citizens from which he got information.

I can't find it anywhere at the present time but I have heard that the death of Michael Brown is the first ever committed by a Ferguson police officer. If that's the case, what "deadly force" is Holder going to investigate?

On a news broadcast last night I saw a sign carried by one of the protesters. It read:

Darren Wilson

You can't hide

We want justice

Dead or alive

Maybe it's me but those words don't sound like justice. They sound like a lynch mob. 

Over the weekend the protesters briefly blocked traffic on the Interstate 270 bypass, even after the Brown family asked them not to do it. At least they've stopped burning down their own neighborhoods. But what is to be accomplished by blocking the freeway? All that will do is anger the community against them.

The tragic thing is - if the pending case against Darren Wilson doesn't turn into an arrest and conviction protesters, state leaders, politicians and even celebrities have already stated their desire to not only continue the protests but to increase the violence and destruction. How is that going to help anything? Who will benefit from it? The black community? I don't think so.

If "justice" doesn't work out for the Ferguson protesters the way they believe it should and they become more violent, all they will succeed in doing is alienating the non-black community from their cause. Eventually people will tire of the violence and one of two things will happen. The black community involved will be shunned by the rest of the nation or there will be increased violence between blacks and whites - in which case nobody wins. Race relations in this country will go from 2014 to 1960 overnight.

I personally believe this is a situation within which President Obama should involve himself. Even more so than Eric Holder, President Obama should be talking to the people of Ferguson and asking for calm. As an African-American President he should be telling them that violence is not the answer even if they don't get what they want. He should be telling them that the incident is under investigation by numerous agencies but that according to the law Darren Wilson is innocent until proven guilty and the process must be allowed to be completed. He should be telling them that if Wilson is found by the grand jury to have not done anything wrong that increased violence not only is the wrong thing to do but will only cause more problems and hurt the community. 

But he's not saying anything. Being the first African-American President - Obama sucks at community relations between blacks and whites in this country. His comments often bring about discord between the two rather than harmony.

So right now we have people in Ferguson acting irrationally while trying to bring about the results they want, whether or not those results bring truth and justice. If it turns out Darren Wilson does not get charged, those people will never be happy. And I feel sorry for the sensible residents of Ferguson in that case. Their community may never recover.

President Obama Declares War On ISIS - But Not Really

In his address to the nation last night President Obama almost sounded tough. He talked about the evil that is ISIS, saying they are not Islam because "no religion condones the killing of innocents." He said we are going to increase the air strikes against ISIS in both Iraq and Syria, and we're now going to arm the Syrian opposition, something he has resisted for three years.

That's all well and good - but there are problems with what he said.

First of all - he continues to refer to the terrorist group as ISIL - the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. For those unfamilar, the Levant region includes Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus and part of southern Turkey. ISIS refers to itself as ISIL because they desire to include the Levant region in their caliphate. Why President Obama refers to them as ISIL - a recognition of their plans and desires - instead of ISIS, or IS, is beyond me but since he and his administration are about the only ones in the Western world to refer to them as ISIL, I can only guess it's because he has more respect for ISIS than he does for our strongest ally, Israel.

Second - ISIS is comprised of Islamic terrorists who worship Allah and live by the Quran. Because President Obama has decided to discount that and pretend they are not Muslims doesn't make it true. Obama said "Most of their victims have been Muslims." And that's true. But most of the victims of all Islamic terrorists are Muslims. When they set off car bombs in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Muslim countries their victims are mostly Muslims who don't abide by their radical beliefs. Saying ISIS is not Islam because most of their victims are Muslim is ridiculous.

The President said "America is helping Muslims fight terrorism." I wonder what that says about the fight between Hamas and Israel. President Obama sent millions of dollars to the Palestinian Authority who, in cooperation with Hamas, was fighting against Israel. Does that mean the President of the United States believes Israel is a terrorist organization?

Obama said we will build a "large coalition" to deal with ISIS and that it should be led by Middle Eastern nations who are in the greatest danger. He affirmed that we will "not put boots on the ground." But what are those other nations going to do? One can't help but wonder if the United States is unwilling to commit troops to seek out and destroy ISIS after the air campaign - will other nations be willing to do so? ISIS is not a group that can be totally destroyed by air power. As in every other military campaign against an enemy - air strikes are the beginning, not the end of the conflict.

President Obama said that the air campaign will be similar to what we've been "doing successfully in Yemen and Somalia for years." But according to Senator Ted Cruz and others, Somalia and Yemen are not success stories. Certainly we've taken out a few Al Qaeda leaders in both countries with drone strikes, without losing a single American life. Our air campaigns have had some success but haven’t destroyed or even significantly degraded terrorist capabilities of the key groups in either country. And both are just as unstable today as they were when we started. Maybe Obama should stay away from that comparison for now.

Obama talked last night about the various terrorist leaders the American military and intelligence forces had taken out during his Presidency. To his credit, the one thing he refrained from doing was saying that he did it. However, as he was saying this I couldn't help but think of the five Taliban leaders he traded for one American deserter. And I can't help but wonder where those terrorist leaders are today.

All in all the President committed to more same ol', same ol'. I'm all for increased air strikes against ISIS and I'm not thrilled with the idea of putting more troops on the ground to fight them. But unless he's going to level the entire region with bombs, the President needs to understand that eventually ground troops will be necessary. As I said - if he can bomb for a couple of years and hand the problem off to his replacement I think he'll be OK with that. Commitment to non-commitment seems to work for him.

May God bless and protect America on this, the 13th anniversary of the tragedy that was 9/11/2001.

Common Core - Teaching Your Child All The Wrong Things?

The following text is from a Common Core assignment for seventh graders that was discovered by the mother of a student in Belleville, Wisconsin. I'm curious - would this be something you think appropriate for your seventh grader to read and complete as an assignment?

There is a river with a bridge over it and a husband and wife live in a house on one side. The wife has a lover who lives on the other side of the river and the only way to get there is to walk across the bridge or to ask the boatman to take you across. One day the husband tells the wife he has to be gone all night to handle some business in a faraway town. The wife pleads with him to take her with him because she knows if he doesn't she will be unfaithful to him. The husband absolutely refuses to take her because she will only be in the way of his important business. So the husband goes alone. While he is gone the wife goes over the bridge and stays with her lover. The night passes and the sun is almost up when the wife leaves because she must get back to her own house before her husband comes home. She starts to cross the bridge but she sees an assasin waiting for her on the other side and she knows if she crosses he will murder her. In terror, she runs up the side of the river and asks the boatman to take her but he wants fifty cents. She has no money so he refuses to take her. The wife runs back to her lover's house and explains what her predicament is. She asks her lover for fifty cents to pay the boatman. The lover refuses and tells her it's her own fault for getting into the situation. As dawn comes the wife is nearly out of her mind and decides to dash across the bridge. She comes face to face with the assassin, who takes out a large knife and stabs her until she dies.

Write down the names of the characters in the order in which you think they were most responsible for the wife's death. List wife, husband, lover, assassin, and boatman in the order you think they are most guilty.

Let's see... we covered infidelity, spousal neglect, emotional abuse by a loved one, murder for hire, and greed all in one long paragraph. Granted, this isn't quite as shocking as the complete sexual lesson plan for fourth graders, which includes same sex relationships, multiple partners, masturbation and graphic pictures, but still - is the story line in this assignment really necessary for a 12 year old?

It's clear to anyone who pays attention that these Common Core lesson plans are created by liberal progressives who believe it's OK for the schools to teach children about topics that should be taught by parents in the home. Is that really necessary? I think not. Teaching 9 year olds everything there is to know about sex should be a parental decision, not that of the school board.

Merriam-Webster defines morality as: beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior. Obviously those beliefs are open to interpretation these days as more and more things that used to be taboo or private have become socially acceptable in today's society - even being forced on those who might disagree about whether they are right or wrong. It is politically incorrect these days to voice your disagreement with any practice that used to be considered immoral. You can't say it's wrong because those who are pushing it will condemn you for saying it's wrong and tell you... you're wrong.

Liberal progressivism is famous for preaching tolerance of pretty much everything - all the while condemning you if you disagree with them. Quite simply, if you don't believe as they do they don't tolerate you. Common Core has been designed to teach children tolerance of anything and everything at a very young age - basically before they really know what they're learning - without parental consent.

It seems clear, with more and more states opting out of the Common Core curriculum and many Republicans and Democrats in Washington and elsewhere rejecting it as either inappropriate or simply substandard education materials, someone needs to step in and take action to replace it. Remember when the "three Rs" were the standard for education? Ever notice what incredible things were accomplished by the people who were thus educated? The 20th century and the first 14 years of the 21st century have been the most productive in history when it comes to science, math, manufacturing, etc. And all of the people who contributed to that were educated without Common Core. I think that speaks for itself.

With The Borders Open - What Else Is Coming To America?

For the last six months (at least) our Southern border has been wide open. The Border Patrol has been pulled back from the actual border and the border itself has become more like a turnstile between Mexico and the United States, except that's a poor analogy because a turnstile actually counts the number of people who pass through and we have no idea how many people have entered the country illegally during this time. We do know that at least 50,000 unaccompanied minors have entered - but that's just the ones we do know about.

In July it was estimated that at least 240,000 adults had come along with those children. By now the total number is believed to be well over 300,000 total just in the last six months. And what has been done about it?

For starters very few, if any, of these illegals have been returned to their home countries. For the most part the children, many of whom arrived with diseases that are rare in the United States these days, such as measles, mumps, etc., have been flown and bused all around the country in secrecy. The Obama administration refuses to tell the American people where they have been sent. In one case in California a convoy of buses carrying illegals to a Border Patrol Detention center was stopped by angry citizens who didn't want the illegals in their town. So now the Obama administration is keeping the transportation and relocation of them hush hush.

Interestingly, a mysterious virus has been sweeping across the Midwest in nearly epidemic proportions. As many as 500 children have been hospitalized in Missouri because of it and doctors don't really know where it came from or why it is affecting children of the Midwest. I have a theory.

If you take tens of thousands of kids from Central and South America who have crossed your borders illegally, many of whom have active diseases and viruses, and scatter them around the nation in secrecy it makes sense that they take their diseases and viruses with them to their new locations. It's not hard to conclude that with tens of thousands of illegal kids from third world countries come diseases and viruses that will affect children here in the United States. Some will say it's a coincidence and that may be true. But it's certainly worth looking at.

The other problem we have is the various reports of Muslims sneaking across the Southern border. Government reports are saying ISIS has a group in Mexico working with the drug cartels. Muslim items such as prayer rugs, Qurans, etc., have been found on the US side of the Mexican border, a good indication that Muslims are crossing undetected into the United States.Why wouldn't they? What better way to effect a large scale attack on the United States than for the terrorists to walk in the wide open door on the Southern border?

As I said yesterday, I believe there is going to be some major terrorist event here in the States on Thursday, September 11th. I believe it will occur in more than one city in the country at the same time, much like the attack on September 11, 2001. And this time, if the participants snuck across the Southern border due to the complete mismanagement of border security by the Obama administration, (It's not the Border Patrol - they want to do their jobs but are not allowed.) then a large part of the blame falls directly on President Obama. He refused (and still refuses) to secure the border and stop the illegal entry of hundreds of thousands of people - including Islamic terrorists. (Obama won't even admit out loud that there is such a thing as Islamic terrorists.) So it will be on his shoulders if people die.

Fortunately, at least Texas Governor Rick Perry had the guts to do something. He went against the wishes of the President and sent the Texas National Guard to the border to assist with diminishing the incoming human traffic. Mexico cried foul but who cares what Mexico thinks?

Again, be vigilant. Don't live in fear of what could happen but be aware of what and who are around you. The life you save could be your own or one of your loved ones.