what happens when a new leader doesn't know History: dangerous policy spells danger for American National Security... from Family Security Matters

A National Security History Lesson for Marco Rubio

by MICHELLE MALKIN April 27, 2013

Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio seems well meaning enough. As second-generation conservative Americans, I know we both share a common passion for this great land of opportunity. But when it comes to comprehending the real agenda of the open-borders zealots he's allied himself with, Rubio doesn't have a clue.
And his abject ignorance threatens all of us who cherish American sovereignty and exceptionalism.
On Fox News' "The Sean Hannity Show" Tuesday night, Rubio defended his Gang of Eight "immigration reform" bill and insisted that we could and should have a system in place that vets foreign tourists and short-term visa holders based on their "national security" profiles.
"In essence, we should be able to analyze (whether) these are individuals coming from a part of the world that keeps feeding into the terrorist network," Rubio earnestly explained. "(W)e should be very careful about who we allow in and take into account every single measure or every single factor that we think could lead to somebody being more likely possibly a member of a terrorist organization or involved in terror."
Great idea, Rubio! Newsflash: The concept of a national security entry-exit screening database is at least 10 years old. It's an idea that was sabotaged by the progressive soft-on-security ideologues with whom Rubio has recklessly partnered.
In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration created NSEERS, the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System. Administered and championed by Justice Department constitutional lawyer, immigration enforcement expert and now-Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, NSEERS stopped at least 330 known foreign criminals and three known terrorists who had attempted to come into the country at certain official ports of entry.
NSEERS required higher scrutiny and common-sense registration requirements for individuals from jihad-friendly countries including Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Syria and Yemen, as well as other at-risk countries. The basic components included a more rigorous application process in light of the shoddy visa questionnaires and undetected overstays of the 9/11 hijackers; 30 extra minutes of interviewing at ports of entry; a digital fingerprint check and in-person registration after they arrived in the interior of the country; and verification of departure once they exited.
The targeted registration of certain foreign nationals already in the country (temporary visa holders including students, tourists and businesspeople) resulted in the apprehension of dozens of illegal alien felons. As I reported at the time, these scumbags included:

--a Tunisian convicted of multiple drug-trafficking offenses, in addition to previous violations of immigration law.
--an Iranian who had been convicted three times of assault with a deadly weapon and had been convicted twice of grand theft in addition to immigration violations.
--an Iranian twice convicted of child molestation.
--two suspected al-Qaida operatives who were caught trying to enter the U.S. after their fingerprints matched ones lifted by our military officials from papers found in Afghanistan caves.

But grievance-mongering identity groups and the American Civil Liberties Union could not stand the idea of an effective national security profiling database. For one thing, a successful program would have laid the groundwork for a broader nationwide entry-exit system affecting all foreign visitors. Congress mandated that system six times over the past 17 years. It has yet to be built.
Let me repeat that: We still have no way of tracking who has actually met their visa requirements, who has overstayed their visa, and who has left the country when their visa requires them to do so. Earth to Rubio: This malignant failure is by special-interest design, not by accident or lack of imagination.
Here's a test: Why doesn't Rubio form a Gang of One and dare Washington to pass the entry-exit system his new pals all say they support as a stand-alone first. Let's see them prove they can keep even a single one of their national security/immigration enforcement promises before entertaining 900 more pages of them. Prove it.
I've read the bill -- and I can see right through it. The Democrats' history speaks for itself. The late Sen. Ted Kennedy, whose illegal alien amnesty spirit infuses the Gang of Eight's bill, spearheaded legislative attempts to de-fund and destroy NSEERS. His left-wing pals (and a few open-borders Republicans such as heavyweight operative Grover Norquist, who stood literally and figuratively behind Rubio at the amnesty bill unveiling) decried NSEERS and its supporters for fostering "discrimination" and "profiling."
Never mind that the pilot program was in line with alien registration systems around the world. And never mind that indiscriminate entry and immigration policies are what enabled so many jihadi plots in the first place.
When the Obama administration took over, as Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul pointed out this week, it indefinitely suspended the NSEERS pilot program and has no plans to revive it in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings.
Now the Gang of Eight Republicans want conservatives to jump in bed with these security saboteurs for another Amnesty Now, Enforcement Never plan? Who's Rubio kidding? Only himself.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Michelle Malkin is the author of Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies (Regnery 2009). Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.

Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/a-national-security-history-lesson-for-marco-rubio?f=must_reads#ixzz2RrBxvAzu
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

WND article: Muslims tell the truth in TX- Naked Supremacism running free

WND EXCLUSIVE

'We are above the law of the land'

Muslim leader's stunning claim at Texas rally for Islam

Published: 2 days ago

by John Griffing Email | Archive

Subscribe to feed

John Griffing is a frequent contributor to American Thinker and is published across an array of cons

Muslims living in America should not be bound by U.S. law, according to a leader of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, who delivered the controversial message to a crowd at a Muslim rally in Austin, Texas.
“If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land,” said Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth CAIR branch.

The rally in Austin was part of a nationwide effort to hold “Muslim Capitol Day” events.
According to the event website, Muslims from around Texas went to the capitol to “promote civic and political activism throughout the wider Muslim community.”
The organizers said one major issue discussed “was the recent House and Senate bill proposals involving the implementation of ‘anti-Shariah’ legislation, where the First Amendment rights and freedoms of Muslims would ultimately be hindered.”
Critics argue Shariah prohibits other faiths from free exercise of religion when enforced, giving freedom only to Muslims.
Carroll’s statement was similar to a statement allegedly made by CAIR co-founder and former chairman Omar M. Ahmad. He was paraphrased by a reporter saying, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant” and the Quran “should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”
Carroll began joking about the widespread concern about Shariah, the religious code that governs Muslim civil and political life.
“We tried to downplay Shariah, because we didn’t want to give the other side any excitement for being here,” he said.
He dismissed critics who express concern about Shariah, calling them “anti-foreign.”
“When you even say the word Shariah, people get nervous. We are not advocating for Shariah. We are not trying to make Shariah the law of the land,” he said.
Carroll claimed Muslims only want the “right to practice our faith.”
But he also said, “If you understand Shariah, the foundation of our faith … how we treat our neighbor, how we treat our parents … how we participate in society, all of that is part of Shariah.”
Carroll is on record defending Hamas, classified by the U.S. as a terrorist group.
“I think you can only blame Hamas for so long. It takes two to tango. And I think, you know, that what we’ve heard for a number of years is this terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, Hamas, Hamas, Hamas, was not just Hamas,” he’s said.
At CAIR’s Dallas banquet in 2007, Carroll denied the Quran is the source of terrorism.
“Look at the true cause of the terrorism. It’s not somebody is reading a book, reading a Quran, and then go out and say, ‘Well, the Quran told me to blow this up. I’m gonna blow it up.’ The cause, the root cause of terrorism is oppression. The root cause of terrorism is oppression.”
Rev. Ronnie C. Lister, a social justice activist from the Houston area, spoke at Muslim Capitol Day.
“This country belongs to you. This state house is your state house. The police department is your police department,” he told the crowd. “This land is your land. … God is on your side … this is your house. [It] does not belong to the Republicans. It does not belong to the Democrats. It does not belong to just Americans. It belongs to all of us!
“We are looking for the day when a Muslim will become president of the United States; you heard it from me,” Lister said.
Islamic expert Frank Gaffney, founder of the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C., told WND that Carroll’s declaration of Islamic supremacy was consistent with Muslim teaching.
“When you hear one of their speakers say, we are above the law of the land – take it to the bank. That is what they really believe,” he said. “That is what all Muslims believe. That is what Shariah teaches. To the extent that Muslims adhere to Shariah, they are obliged to try and impose it on the rest of us.”
“The organized spread of Shariah is what Gaffney calls “civilization jihad.”
Gaffney, assistant secretary of defense for international security policy in the Reagan administration, noted CAIR was founded in 1993 to serve as a fundraising and political arm for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
See video of the Austin rally:

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/we-are-above-the-law-of-the-land/#1H2kG1VV27sGKxe7.99

John Guandolo and The United West- Brennan is a Muslim convert

John Brennan is a Muslim Convert... starts as 10:50, goes through 22:00. Factual background is here as well.

Agenda 21 background

The Role of Technology in winning elections; Progressives have control because they can, and DID dominate... from Red Mass Group.

Obama, Romney, and GOP Technology: A Chilling Analysis by: edfactor Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 02:20:49 AM EST

(Very good stuff.  On our side these guys are disproportionately in the "Lberty Movement"   - promoted by Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno) [First, fear not - MassGOP tech coming in several hours. :-) ] / * This post is about technology, but is written for a non-technical audience. You may think you know what happened with the technology of the Obama and Romney campaigns because of what you read about Orca. You don't know. This article is incredibly long. It will be worth it, and you will never look at technology and politics in the same way. If someone knows where to post or put this so that the RNC sees it, please do so. I am designating this content under a Creative Commons CC-BY license. Distribute freely with attribution. * / "We must develop the best technology with the help of the best minds." - GOP Chairman Reince Priebus, in a speech in January 2013, after being re-elected. Yes, Mr. Priebus, we must, because in 2012, Team Obama kicked our asses in ways that you don't understand. The Democrats have created a whole ecosystem of technology and people that we don't have. It will be nearly impossible to catch up. This article will explain why, and offer some advice. But you're going to have to be bold. Or we are going to lose in 2016. This article will attempt to answer the following questions: - What role did technology play in the 2012 presidential election? - How did Obama and Romney spend their money? - What were the differences in their approaches? - How did their spending and approaches affect what they were able to do? - How far ahead are the Democrats in technology? - Will this technology trickle down? Lessons Learned - What are the big lessons? - Can Republicans catch up? (Read more...)

edfactor :: Obama, Romney, and GOP Technology: A Chilling Analysis

BACKGROUND AND SOURCE MATERIAL This article is based on many public sources and several private ones with strong connections to the people who have built campaign technology for President Obama over the past several years. Fortunately, most of the useful information is public, thanks to Engage, TechPresident and Ars Technica. Links to all their great work is at the bottom of this article. (I don't know a single technology person in the Romney campaign and they have revealed little about their operations. But I can tell much of what happened by the public information and the spending reports. I also, as a Romney supporter, used a lot of their public-facing tools.) INTRODUCTION: BACK TO 2008 I remember the 2008 campaign between then-Senators Obama and John McCain. In my professional world, we were all buzzing about what technologies would be used, as this appeared to be the first big election where Internet technology would finally play a major role. I had a few friends who were working (though Blue State Digital) for Senator Obama. I knew no one who worked for Senator McCain. At the time, web technology was aimed at making a better website, offer some organizing tools, do some analytics, and spreading the word though email and social media channels. There was talk about radical changes to GOTV, but that was a ways off. It was still the "digital" side of the campaign, and new technology didn't flow through the entire campaign operation at that time. The first thing I noticed was a difference in technology and resources. First, the McCain campaign only had a small number of people on the digital side (perhaps a dozen). The Obama campaign had many more people involved (close to 100). That's the part people remember. But there was another thing that only we technology folks would notice: different kinds of software. McCain's main website and tools were built on a kind of Microsoft technology that you would see from a medium-sized bank. Obama's tools were simple but flexible "open source" components that were part of a worldwide network of interesting and innovative products. After the 2008 election, Republicans saw that they were quite behind the Democrats in social media and a few other areas. They decided that we would have to do better next time. But four years later, we found that we were even further behind. That's right, a brilliant graduate of Harvard Business School with a billion dollars ended up further behind his opponent, who spent less than half the amount of money he did, but fielded an operation four times as large. So how the hell did this happen? You're going to find out. DIGRESSION: OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE There is one big, new tech concept that you must understand that is at the very heart of the Internet software development world. Almost all of the basic components that startups use are free. Yes, after decades of dominance by IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, and many others, we are now in a world where free, community-based software is were all the innovation and action is at. I'm serious. For example: almost all of the software components that power Facebook worldwide is free. That doesn't mean you will know how to use it. The metaphor is this: I can walk you in the front door of Home Depot and say, "Take anything you want. You can build a beautiful mansion with what's in here." Could you build a mansion? Probably not. But the materials won't cost you a thing. That's what Internet software is like now. Most of the best stuff costs nothing. You just have to know how to use it. Unfortunately, almost all of the best people who can build those mansions of software are not Republicans. And that's a huge problem. (More on that later.) WHAT ROLE DID TECH PLAY? Most people think of technology as a website. Perhaps a collaboration platform, like some offices use to post events and share documents. But that is not accurate anymore. I coined the following phrase months ago: "We are living in an information technology revolution and politics is the ultimate information war." This time, in 2012, Team Obama took technology to everything it did: communication, door-knocking, organizing, voter targeting and preferences, polling, advertising, fundraising, and a whole new level of GOTV. There would be a giant backbone of voter data that would flow through every activity and it would be so knowledgable and so good at predicting what to do, that the wisdom of political consultants would be irrelevant. Here's a great quote from someone at TechPresident who interviewed the staff: "The core of the campaign was not flashy or even particularly innovative except in the willingness of senior staff to listen to numbers people rather than to consultants acting on old-fashioned political intuition." That's right: this time, it would be hard numbers, not political strategists, that would dictate everything they would do. Republicans heard about this approach months ahead of time and laughed at it. WSJ Columnist and former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan was one of the ones who didn't get it until after the election, and then wrote, regretfully: "I referred to a recent hiring notice from the Obama 2012 campaign. It read like politics as done by Martians: The 'Analytics Department' is looking for 'predictive Modeling/Data Mining' specialists to join the campaign's 'multi-disciplinary team of statisticians,' which will use 'predictive modeling' to anticipate the behavior of the electorate. 'We will analyze millions of interactions a day, learning from terabytes of historical data, running thousands of experiments, to inform campaign strategy and critical decisions.' This struck me as "high tech and bloodless." I didn't quite say it, but it all struck me as inhuman, unlike any politics I'd ever seen.It was unlike any politics I'd ever seen. And it won the 2012 campaign. Those "Martians" were reinventing how national campaigns are done. They didn't just write a new political chapter with their Internet outreach, vote-tracking data-mining and voter engagement, especially in the battleground states. They wrote a whole new book. And it was a masterpiece. " [1] (But when I saw that hiring notice, I said, "Oh my God - are they really going to apply that stuff to campaigns now?" My mind swirled.) Here's another great quote from that TechPresident article: "This campaign had enough data to be able to make differentiated strategy decisions at small geographic levels," one campaign staffer told techPresident. "The unsung heroes were all the team leaders and volunteers who were entering data nightly, and then strategizing with the data coming back from HQ." [2] One more item for all those people who keep talking about the value of door-knocking over technology: the Obama and Romney people built technology so that the door-knockers would have info on their phones right before they knocked, and the ability to add data from the door visit into the system in front of that house. Quote from Obama campaign manager Jim Messina: "I mean, the best data for us was things that we collected at the doors." Oh - and social media.... if you think Facebook is just about sharing, you won't believe the things the Obama people figured out how to do. Let's start with just sharing. They didn't just figure out who to share stuff with, as both campaigns knew how to do. They were looking at your friends, too, which matters as they figured out that 98% of all Facebook users know someone who likes President Obama. "The prototype used a script to check a given supporter's Facebook friends list against what the campaign knew about those friends. The campaign could use the merged data to create arbitrary scores that indicated which of a user's Facebook friends the campaign would like to present with a given piece of content." [3] It gets more advanced than that: "Applying the same principles to get out the vote, Obama for America asked its supporters who had been signed up for the OfA Facebook application to pick potential voters from among their friends in swing states and urge them to get to the ballot box or register to vote. In the final days before the election and on election day, the application flooded its users with notifications asking them to reach out on the campaign's behalf. Officials told Time's Michael Scherer that a staggering 20 percent of people asked by their friends to register, vote or take another activity went ahead and did it." [3] For the youth vote, they realized that 85% of all young voters were friends with someone already in their Facebook database. All they had to do was use their data to figure out which friends of friends were in which states, and then use targeted sharing to get content to them.[4] We don't have the numbers, but I have heard that thousands of people were gotten to the polls in this way in swing states. When you look at the margin of victory, you being to say, "Whoa....did Facebook technology hand any of the states to Obama?" I don't know. I could go on and on, but I hope you see that this was a level of technology that campaigns had never seen before. (And I didn't even get to their amazing email and fundraising stuff. For example, while Romney had 2-3 million people on their email list, Obama had 16 million. And what percentage of Obama's 16 million got to the polls to vote? 99% !!! So for those of you who think direct mail is irreplaceable, think again.) HOW DID OBAMA AND ROMNEY SPEND THEIR MONEY? As the old saying goes, if you watch how people spend their money, you see their priorities. Ars Technica did a complete breakdown of the spending of both campaigns. (See links 5+6 below)  But I will try to sum up the data. Note that it isn't easy to clearly say what is and is not technology, but the exact numbers are not important in this analysis. Romney: $23.6 million (at least - not counting some data management stuff that was expensive.) They spent money to have other people build and handle stuff, keeping only a few things and a few employees in-house. Everything was software as a service. According to reports, he paid his tech people a lot less than Obama did. [5] Obama: $11.3 million Obama spent $9.3 million on technology and services. $2 million on internal tech payroll - this is a major and crucial difference from Romney. They paid their people more, though most took a pay cut from their regular software jobs to join the campaign. Obama spent $1.4 million on hosting they managed themselves (Amazon Web Services) - compared to Romney's $21,000. (But Romney probably paid MindShift - a BestBuy company, several hundred thousand dollars for them to host stuff for them.) [6] WHAT WERE OTHER DIFFERENCES IN THEIR APPROACHES? Well, for one, Obama's people decided to hire a fantastic CEO from a startup named Threadless to be their Chief Technology Officer. Harper Reed is one weird, but super-smart guy. Here is his picture: (this is one of the less-scary ones of him) Can you picture the Romney people hiring someone like him to manage their technology? I didn't think so. Other than Reed, the biggest difference was that Romney outsourced his problems for other firms to handle. Obama hired people to build solutions internally. But there were many others. Romney hired firms run by people he had previous ties with. As Ars Technica put it, he hired his friends. [5] When it came to in-house technologists, Obama hired senior people and paid them more. Romney hired more junior people and paid them less. Obama's in-house organization was huge! He had 200 digital people - website people, social media, etc. He had 50 more developers and 50 more analytics people. This crew made up about 1/3 of all Obama campaign staff! Romney had a small fraction of that. Obama's people used open source tools and proven designs. "Key in maximizing the value of the Obama campaign's IT spending was its use of open source tools and open architectures. Linux-particularly Ubuntu-was used as the server operating system of choice." [6] Obama's team changed technologies a lot; they customized; they innovated. They did a lot with cloud computing, while Romney's people used more traditional hosting in Boston and Waltham. Obama's team did practice drills for major IT meltdowns so they would be prepared. They had a complete copy of their entire infrastructure moved to the West Coast when Hurricane Sandy hit. (This is an incredible feat.) Obama set up a field office in SF for tech help got 100 volunteers and many did serious work and built real applications. Obama's team opened up to outside people and the press about what it was doing, both before, and especially after the election. Obama's people, before they started the campaign tech effort, toured Silicon Valley startups to find out best practices for the things they knew they needed to do. They wanted to be innovative, but they didn't want to do something that was not already working elsewhere. Obama's people decided that instead of trying to combine third-party software services that were not designed to work together, that they would build their own giant data integration tool that would combine everything every part of the campaign knew about every voter, donor, and volunteer into one giant system that all applications could tie into. There is no way to overstate how powerful this was. Every email, every phone call, every web advertisement, every website visit, every Facebook connection, and every door knocker would know everything about everyone and could do individual personalization on the spot. This was what "Project Narwhal" was. It is the holy grail of all political activity. It improved efficiency across the entire country and it probably, over time, won the election for Obama. I don't say that carelessly. (Now you understand what 50 analytics guys can do full-time when they have every piece of data about everybody in America, eh?) HOW DID SPENDING AND APPROACH AFFECT EXECUTION? Obama's people, who were from the internet startup world, hired heavily from their social networks and brought in people from America's most innovative firms. They brought those ideas and hard-won experience into the campaign. They didn't need to be taught how to create architecture for rapid growth. They knew already. In terms of reliability, Obama's infrastructure suffered 30 minutes of downtime for the entire campaign. And zero on election day. Romney's people had some outages, and terrible problems on Election Day with GOTV. By building a unified set of data services, Obama's people were able to constantly and easily add new things to the campaign without worrying about the data layer as Romney's people did. Every new application therefore took much less time than it did for Romney. Obama's people focused on using simple components that were easy to understand. This, along with their data services, allowed them to create the San Francisco field office and get people contributing and writing real applications to help the campaign. There was no way Romney could have easily added outside help, even if they wanted to. HOW FAR AHEAD ARE THE DEMOCRATS IN TECHNOLOGY? If we are talking about the tech of the parties in general, that's hard to say. My guess is that the Democratic Party is, in general, a couple of years ahead, based on things I have read. However, in terms of judging the campaign technology of Romney and Obama, I think that the Obama people are at least three years ahead. Probably four. But talking about the number of years doesn't tell the whole story. The Democrats already have an entire ecosystem of political technology going on. It's everything from all of Blue State Digital's stuff to NGP VAN to ActBlue to a lot more. Some of the stuff they have built, such as NationBuilder, is available to all. Most is not. They have an ethos of using technology to enable individual people to stand up to big corporations and the wealthy. It motivates them to keep moving forward and building new things. The other big issue is people. Most of the best technology people in America are either Democrats or non-Republicans. The numbers are startling. Nate Silver covered this issue in an article named, "In Silicon Valley, Technology Talent Gap Threatens GOP Campaigns." [7] The donation chart below tells the story: But I knew this without even seeing those numbers. Not all my friends in the tech elite are Democrats. But almost none are Republicans. In this state, I know of only one other top technology guy who is Republican - even though I am sure there are some more. (There are all kinds of ordinary programmers of all political parties. But those people are not going to build Narwhal.) The reality is that even though the great software developers of America care about the economy and freedom and innovation and don't like a lot of government regulation, the GOP brand is just too toxic. I try to talk them out of their impressions. But they just say, "Ed, they are not like you." (They being the people on TV and in the news.) Also, the high-tech world is a diverse and tolerant culture. Diversity and tolerance are not what we Republicans are known for. If we want to reach out to the technology innovators, we are going to have to change our image and also address some of their policy concerns. (More below on that.) WILL OBAMA'S TECHNOLOGY TRICKLE DOWN? That's the big question. Much has been written about whether Obama's campaign will give all they built to the open source community, where they got so many of the components they used to begin with. The answer right now seems to be no. However, through their social networks, the ideas and architecture are already spreading. Also, they claimed they used components already in use at the well-known startups, and we (computer geeks) already know what those shops are using. (Take Narwhal for instance. I think I have some idea what it would look like. But no, I cannot go build that for you.) I imagine that some of these techniques and tools will be shared with the major Democratic players (ActBlue and Blue State Digital) and also that the successor organization to OFA will get some components as well. I don't think state parties will get anything directly, but they may get some of this functionality through the big vendors' state-level products. For instance, Obama's team did a lot with fundraising (though I didn't talk about it) and I wouldn't be surprised if that got transferred to ActBlue, and the Massachusetts Democrats, who don't use ActBlue now for local races, can start using that anytime. (They use it for PACs and statewide races at the moment.) WHAT LESSONS CAN WE LEARN? There are so many things we can learn from all this. - Technology is no longer an add-on to a campaign. It drives all activities in a campaign. - Romney's people didn't pay attention to the lessons of the past (2008), when Obama's people struggled with GOTV technology and lots of data issues. (Obama's people were very surprised at this, as these lessons were public.) We must keep up with these things. We must study what Obama's people did in 2012 in great detail. (I have included all good public information at the bottom of this article.) - Outsourcing everything means you lose control and the ability to adapt to changing conditions. We need to hire technology guys into party operations and large campaigns and pay them well. - We need to build things in iterations, testing all along the way, using simple building blocks. No more building something big for a long while and then releasing it. Too risky. - We need to keep up with what the startups are doing in technology and translate those things into political uses. - We need to get involved with the online communities that are out there that share innovation, such as Github - used heavily by Obama's team and not Romney's. We also must get a feel for how these places operate so we can build our own Republican communities of technology. - We need to stop using so much commercial software and use a lot more free, open source software. - We need to embrace the new world of analytics and social science research in voter preferences and targeting. We need to cultivate a network of people who have these skills. - We need to discuss technology out in the open. Obama's people let a lot of what they were doing out into the community so they could get feedback and help. CAN WE REPUBLICANS CATCH UP? The short answer is no. Getting to yes would be a long and hard road. Some of that journey actually has nothing to do with technology. Here is my prescription for Chairman Priebus: - Begin building the infrastructure for the 2016 GOP Presidential Nominee now. Start by commissioning some people to create a Republican version of Narwhal. - Elevate technologists to the most valuable of all Republican activists. Create nationwide programs to gather them together, share best practices, and produce components. Foster technology projects across state Republican parties. Invite in all kinds of groups on the right, including Ron Paul's supporters and the Tea Party. Nothing unites people like technology projects. - Create a nationwide repository for voter data tools that can link to and work with the data from GOP Data Center (the successor to Voter Vault). - Start supporting the voter information file from NationBuilder. I know that seems crazy. But the party should have a community of people who use that data and build apps on it. I predict that by 2014, the data and applications in there will be far more valuable than anything in GOP Data Center. -  Technologists have policy needs that neither party is serving. If we had a platform that included them, they would have a strong reason to support the party. What are these desires? Copyright and patent reform, an open web (build on what Darrell Issa is doing), prevent things like SOPA and PIPA, and increase the amount of high-tech visas. These things - plus California's new high taxes - will help change the perception of Republicans. - Start to offer technology training to activists who want to learn computer programming. Do what Code for America does. (They are a non-profit that teaches people to code and then loans them to cities to build applications for better government.) Find people, train them with great free resources like Code Academy, do some in-person training and programming contests, and then put them to work on great projects. There are regular computer programmers who have boring jobs who would love to work on cool projects with the cool stuff that they know is used at Facebook, Twitter, Etsy, and Google. We should give them some opportunities. Well, that is all I have to say about this for now. I didn't even cover the whole story or lots of other things they built. But I think this is enough for my fellow Republicans to start taking technology much more seriously. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ References 1. Noonan: "About those 2012 Political Predictions" Link here. 2. TechPresident: "The Obama Campaign's Legacy: Listen, Experiment, and Analyze Everything" Link here: http://techpresident.com/news/... 3. TechPresident: "How Obama for America Made Its Facebook Friends into Effective Advocates" Link here: http://techpresident.com/news/... 4. Inside the Cave: The most comprehensive look at the Obama campaigns technology is an astounding 93-page slide presentation from Engage Research, available for download here: http://www.engagedc.com/inside... 5. Ars Technica: "Romney campaign got its IT from Best Buy, Staples, and Friends" Link here: http://arstechnica.com/informa... This is a great breakdown of all the spending that Romney's campaign did on technology. It shows what decisions were made - like buying stuff from friends instead of best-of-breed. 6. Ars Technica: "How Team Obama's Tech Efficiency Left Romney IT in the Dust." Link here : http://arstechnica.com/informa... This is the spending breakdown for Obama. 7. New York Times (Nate Silver) "In Silicon Valley, Technology Talent Gap Threatens GOP Campaigns" Link here: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.n... This article makes the case that if almost every top techie is a Democrat, then we are not going to be able to compete in a tech-driven political world. OTHER GREAT RESOURCES Slate "Obama's White Whale" - Feb. 15, 2012 Link is: http://www.slate.com/articles/... This article is about the building of Project Narwhal - a unified database of voters, volunteers, and donors for every application (email, advertising, social media and more) to share everything about everyone. It was astonishing in scope. Ars Technica "Inside Team Romney's Whale of an IT meltdown" Link here: http://arstechnica.com/informa... This article is about the failure of Orca - the Romney campaign's GOTV platform, that was supposed to be a competitor to some of what Narwhal was doing. This meltdown is the party of the story most people know about already. Giga-Om: "How Mobile and IT Mismanagement Failed Mitt Romney " Link here: http://gigaom.com/2012/11/10/h... This article has an awesome screenshot of the Orca mobile app. Ars Technica "Built to win: Deep inside Obama's campaign tech" Link is: http://arstechnica.com/informa... This is a wonderful article with a great overview of the technologies the Obama people used, especially in how Narwhal and Dashboard were built. Ars Technica: "Which Consultants Built Romney's Project Orca? None of them" Link here: http://arstechnica.com/informa... This article reveals that in-house people built Orca, not outside consultants. Ars Technica: "Orca was no fail-whale..." Link is: http://arstechnica.com/informa... Here, Romney digital director Moffett says that Orca wasn't that big a failure and admits his company didn't have the talent to build it and that he didn't see the orca code until election day. Huffington Post: "What's next for Obama's technology?" Link here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... This is about the issue of what is done with this infrastructure and if it should be given to other Democratic groups. TechPresident "Democratic Politics and the Innovator's Dilemna." Link here: http://techpresident.com/news/... This is about the edge the Democrats have developed in technology and the issues involved in managing it and protecting it.

Hamas-CAIR facts from Pamela Geller

Sharia Thugs: Hamas-CAIR bullies State Officials, demands they withdraw from MDCAN Conference with Pamela Geller

Killing free speech and oppressing freedom loving people is #myjihad, what's yours? (paraphrasing Hamas-CAIR).
I am scheduled to speak this weekend at The Maryland Conservative Conference.  Hamas-CAIR is attempting to intimidate elected officials into canceling the event. Hamas-CAIR continues its jihad to silence champions of freedom, they are urging the organizers to cancel my appearance. This is how these nazis roll. Thuggery, intimidation and the silencing of critics of jihad and sharia.
They mean to threaten and bully our elected officials with a smear campaign designed to destroy them if they dare attend a conference where I scheduled to speak. This is Islamic supremacism in action in a free country.
Join me as I address the Maryland Conservative Conference on January 12, 2013 at their annual conference. Sign up here; I understand tickets are going fast. Sign up now and stand against Islamic thuggery. Do not be cowed. They cannot silence truth.

CAIR: Md. Pols Asked to Withdraw from Event with Hate Group Leader

by CAIR on Tuesday, January 8, 2013

(GAITHERSBURG, MD, 1/8/13) – The Maryland chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-MD) today called on several state officials to withdraw from the upcoming Maryland Conservative Action Network Conference in Annapolis at which the leader of a designated anti-Muslim hate group will speak.
CAIR-MD said Dels. Nic Kipke and Neil Parrott will join County Commissioners Richard Rothschild and Blaine Young at the Saturday event featuring a keynote address by Pamela Geller. Geller is co-founder of an organization designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and author of a book offering step-by-step instructions on how to stop mosque construction in America.
SEE: Maryland Conservative Action Network Conference
http://www.mdconservatives.com/
CAIR-MD is also encouraging all people of conscience to take part in a protest of Geller’s presence at the Saturday event.
SEE: Protest MD Republicans Bigoted Anti-Muslim Conference
Geller was recently the subject of a CAIR “Islamophobe profile” documenting the individuals and organizations involved in spreading anti-Muslim bias in the United States.
================================================================

Hamas-CAIR Facts:
CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department – and that CAIR operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups....Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror, and...CAIR’s cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Ibrahim Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements....CAIR’s California chapter distributed posters telling Muslims not to talk to the FBI." (More from Spencer of CAIR here):

CAIR has attempted to intimidate the FBI and JTTF and dictate their choice of speakers, and in doing so retailed numerous false charges, defamation, distortions, and outright lies about me, SIOA, and Pamela Geller.
CAIR has a long record of duplicity and deception. Although it has received millions of dollars in donations from foreign Islamic entities, it has not registered as a foreign agent as required by the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), despite spreading Islamic supremacist propaganda within the United States.
Although it presents itself as a civil rights group, CAIR actually has numerous links to Islamic supremacist and jihad groups. CAIR founders Omar Ahmad and Niwad Awad (who still serves as CAIR's executive director) were present at a Hamas planning meeting in Philadelphia in 1993 where they and other Hamas operatives conspired to raise funds for Hamas and to promote jihad in the Middle East. CAIR has steadfastly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups.
Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror:
* Ghassan Elashi, founder of CAIR's Texas chapter, in 2009 received a 65-year prison sentence for funneling over $12 million from the Islamic charity known as the Holy Land Foundation to the jihad terrorist group Hamas, which is responsible for murdering hundreds of Israeli civilians
* Mousa Abu Marzook, a former CAIR official, was in 1995 designated by the U.S. government in 1995 as a "terrorist and Hamas leader." He now is a Hamas leader in Syria.
* Randall Royer, CAIR's former civil rights coordinator, in 2004 began serving a 20-year prison sentence for aiding al-Qaida and the Taliban against American troops in Afghanistan and recruiting for Lashkar e-Taiba, the jihadist group responsible for the 2008 Mumbai jihad massacres.
* Bassem Khafagi, CAIR's former community relations director, was arrested for involvement with the Islamic Assembly of North America, which was linked to al-Qaida. After pleading guilty to visa and bank fraud charges, Khafagi was deported.
* Rabih Haddad, a former CAIR fundraiser, was deported for his work with the Global Relief Foundation (which he co-founded), a terror-financing organization.
In 1998 Omar Ahmad, CAIR's co-founder and longtime Board Chairman, said: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."
After he received unwelcome publicity as a result of this statement, Ahmad denied saying it, several years after the fact. However, the original reporter, Lisa Gardiner of the Fremont Argus, stands by her story.
CAIR's spokesman Ibrahim Hooper once said: "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future."

Media JIHAD. When journalism is void of good judgement and fairness, the fruits show for themselves....

Media jihad: USA Today norming sharia: "doesn't pose a threat to freedom"

There is an absence of morality in a media lacking in the basic understanding of American values, political freedom, i.e., an individual’s freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by the government. There can be no other explanation for their exaltation of oppression and subjugation than willful blindness.
USA Today is running a column that is so dishonest, so dangerous, it is stunning. Every Islamic myth and outright lie is delievered as fact. The goal to normalize the sharia.
The sharia is the most extreme ideology and system of governance on the face of the earth. This is madness, and worse still is the media's relentless promotion of this gruesome legal system.
Jewish law is voluntary. Canon law is voluntary. Sharia asserts authority over non-Muslims and is also political in nature. Robert Spencer explains, "Jewish law doesn’t force itself on anyone, unlike Islamic law. The Quran says that 'there is no compulsion in religion,' but there is compulsion in Islamic law – unlike Jewish law. And Jewish law doesn’t assert authority over non-Jews, while Islamic law does assert authority over non-Muslims. It didn’t deal honestly with the fact that Islamic law is a comprehensive political program at variance with democratic freedoms."

• In Sharia, a woman's testimony is half that of a man (Qur'an 2:282),
• There are double standards in women's ability to get out of a marriage,
• The Qur'an endorses wife-beating (4:34),
• The Sharia mandates the death penalty for apostasy
• The Sharia mandates the subjugation of non-Muslims, and more. The ICNA presentation is a complete whitewash.

ICNA is a Muslim Brotherhood group, according to a captured internal document of the Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood groups in America are trying to norm Sharia, mainstream Sharia. The Muslim Brotherhood group ICNA needs to lie to Americans about Sharia and advance a false narrative about the most extreme and radical ideology on the face of the earth. Period. They don't want Americans to know the truth that the gendercide of honor killings, the clitorectomies, the stonings, and the 1,400 years of cultural annihilations and enslavements are all Sharia-mandated.

Slavery is sanctioned under the sharia. The Islamic culture has long and mercilessly exploited slavery to this very day. Slavery is still legal in Islamic Mauratania...

 

read the rest at Atlas Shrugs here

hope

Bill Whittle, by David Horowitz TV on YouTube....

what happens when we have a traitor on the WH....

Obama Administration Sets Stage For Sharia Law In America

253 Comments

895

One of the most terrifying things that Americans could expect from a second term of Barack Obama is not the economic downturn that we are already experiencing. It’s not another ‘Fast and Furious’ scandal. Rather it appears that more and more the Obama administration, specifically the Department of Justice, is turning a blind eye to attempts to introduce aspects of sharia law into the legal system. Last week Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), a member of the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution questioned Assistant Attorney General of the DOJ Civil Rights Division Thomas Perez on the First Amendment and specifically he was asking in regards to criminalizing those who speak out against any religion.
Franks’ questions were prompted by a Daily Caller article from late last year in which Perez was quoted as warmly embracing the proposals of Islamist advocates in a meeting at George Washington University, among them a request for “a legal declaration that U.S. citizens’ criticism of Islam constitutes racial discrimination.”
Perez reportedly ended the meeting with an enthusiastic closing speech and was quoted as saying, “I sat here the entire time, taking notes…I have some very concrete thoughts … in the aftermath of this.”

Rep. Franks asked,

“Will you tell us here today that this Administration’s Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?”

Mr. Perez would not answer with a simple yes or no. In fact, though he was asked four times he still would not answer the question posed to him.
So why the targeting of Perez by Franks? William Bigelow writes,

Last October, at George Washington University, there was a meeting between DOJ officials, including Perez, and Islamist advocates against free speech. Representatives from the Islamist side included Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). The ISNA was an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding trial in 2008, as well as functioning as a Muslim Brotherhood Front. The leader of the Islamist attack was Sahar Aziz, an Egyptian-born American lawyer and Fellow at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, a Muslim advocacy group based in Michigan. At the meeting, the Islamists lobbied for:
Cutbacks in U.S. anti-terror training
Limits on the power of terrorism investigators
Changes in agent training manuals
A legal declaration that criticism of Islam in the United States should be considered racial discrimination
Aziz said that the word “Muslim” has become “racialized” and, once American criticism of Islam was silenced, the effect would be to “take [federal] money away from local police departments and fusion centers who are spying on all of us.”

Niether the DOJ nor Perez had any response. It tells us very clearly that the Obama DOJ doesn’t care at all for real free speech. The implementation of Sharia law would completely undermine the U.S. Constitution.
The Obama administration obviously care that homosexuals can spout off about Christianity. They must believe that Muslims are OK to mock, openly ridicule and attack Christians, but look out if it should come to speech against Islam and pointing out its errors or false prophet!

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/08/obama-administration-sets-stage-for-sharia-law-in-america/#ixzz2BRe0rXlc

this is an ongoing violation of Michigan resident's rights.... good people move out of Dearborn.. what of the ones who are trapped there, living in fear?

Dearborn, Michigan: America’s Muslim Mecca Continues Their Assault on Christianity

posted on April 5, 2012 by Giacomo

98 Comments

155

Dearborn, Michigan is reported to be the home of the largest concentration of Muslims in the United States.  With numbers come power and evidently their numbers have given them power over the city government.  The results are a continued assault on the rights of Christians living in Dearborn.
Dearborn hosted an Arab Festival a couple of years ago.  Four Christian missionaries tried to minister to the Muslims outside the festival, but were arrested by local police for doing so.  A Christian minister was also arrested outside the same festival for handing out tracts.  All of them brought suit against the City of Dearborn for violating their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and religion and won their cases against the city.
But evidently, Dearborn officials have not given up in their crusade to silence Christians in their town.
In the latest episode, Dearborn city officials are trying to use a subversive method of silencing Christians.  A local pastor and his associates filed an application with the Dearborn Police Department, seeking permission to assemble outside the largest mosque in all of North America to speak out against Sharia law.  Before approving the application, city officials had one slight stipulation in that they wanted the pastor and his associates to give up all of their rights if anything happened.

The pastor and his associates felt the stipulation placed upon them by the city was illegal and unconstitutional.  With the help of the Thomas More Law Center, the group has filed suit against the city.  They also filed for an emergency injunction to allow the group to carry out their plans to speak this coming Saturday.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center issued the following statement,

“Just recently, Dearborn police demanded that [the pastor] sign this ‘Hold Harmless’ agreement, which would waive all rights that he would have and … would make him and his organization responsible for anything that occurred while he was engaged in his free-speech activities.”

It’s interesting to see Muslims fight for their own rights and then turn around and strip those same rights away from anyone else of a different religion, especially Christians.  Their goal is not equality, but supreme superiority and power and they will stop at nothing until they achieve that goal and all of us infidels are silenced or chained.

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/4546/dearborn-michigan-americas-muslim-mecca-continues-their-assault-on-christianity/#ixzz2B06ll5Cd

ask yourself, and your neighbors... why would "just a religion of peace" need a PR firm??? and not just 1 PR firm, but 10?????? And we are led to believe that Islam is just another religion. How long will America fall for this?

Muslim Nations Hire 10 New PR Agencies Since Last Year – PR Firms Assist In Selling Terror And Brutality

Read this. Is it any wonder that we are overwhelmed by a pro-jihad culture?

Arab Nations Hire 10 New PR Agencies Since Last Year – PR Firms Assist In Selling Terror And Brutality Ronn Torossian
       The U.S. Public Relations industry is one which is very high profile, but is a tiny, close knit industry, with only perhaps 75 American PR firms having more than 50 employees (i.e. enough scope/influence to represent a foreign government or foreign interests). Over lunch this week, one of my peers, who like me, owns 1 of the 25 largest US PR Agencies explained why his firm would no longer work with Jewish organizations and Pro-Israel concerns. He explained there is simply too much money working for Arab organizations and interests, and between front groups, organizations and projects from a business perspective he was no longer working for Pro-Israel or Jewish organizations. It’s a trend which will grow – and will see Arab interests even more positively portrayed in American media.
    In the latest news, Bahrain in the last 12 months has hired at least ten public relations companies since last year. Yes, you read it right – 10 – including Qorvis, the Washington company hired by Saudi Arabia to salvage that kingdom's reputation abroad after the 9/11 terrorist attack. The regime of Bahrain which tortures its own citizens has an awful human rights record and doesn’t recognize the existence of Israel, also hired Joe Trippi, former campaign manager for Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential bid, Sanitas International, whose partner Christopher Harvin is a former Bush White House aide...

complete article here

Why we are afraid... a 1400 secret explained, by Bill Warner

Wow. This is worth watching, saving, and sharing. It answers WHY people are so afraid to talk about or discuss Islam.

Terror Attacks archived at The Religion of Peace.com

From Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs.... she nods to this great website as a resource for tracking all terrorist activity around the world. Worth checking out, not for the squeamish.

Lioness ***

Tonight's bloglight spotlight is on one of my favorite blogs. I have been a fan since I started blogging back in November 2004. The Religion of Peace.comhttp://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ is a masterwork, displaying a little-seen commitment to comprehensive jihad coverage that has become an invaluable resource for counter jihadists the world over.

 Today's jihad report:

2012.09.02 (Gao, Mali) - A kidnapped Algerian diplomat is executed in captivity by al-Qaeda.

2012.09.01 (Baghdad, Iraq) - Terrorists set off a bomb outside a coffee shop, killing two patrons.

2012.09.01 (Wardak, Afghanistan) - Twin suicide bombers incinerate over a dozen people including a child and two women.

2012.09.01 (Hazar Ganji, Pakistan) - Sunnis pull five Shia vegetable seller off of a truck and calmly shoot them to death.

 2012.09.01 (Narathiwat, Thailand) - Muslim bombers tear off the legs of two plantation workers.

2012.08.31 (Peshawar, Pakistan) - A dozen Pakistanis are torn to shreds by a Taliban bomb near a mosque.

 My source for our islamorealism ad campaign of over 19,000 jihad attacks since 911 is The Religion of Peace.com -- where every single attack is listed and complied.

List of Islamic Terror Attacks For the Past 30 Days

Previous years

Islamic Terror Attacks for First Part of 2012

Islamic Terror Attacks for 2011 (go to original website to find the rest, folks)

Islamic Terror Attacks for 2010

Islamic Terror Attacks for 2009

Islamic Terror Attacks for 2008

Islamic Terror Attacks for 2007

Islamic Terror Attacks for 2006

Islamic Terror Attacks for 2005

Islamic Terror Attacks for 2004

Islamic Attacks from September 11th, 2001 through 2003

Posted by Pamela Geller on Sunday, September 02, 2012 at 06:13 PM

California Politicians and Law Enforcement Support Sharia Law - Godfather Politics

Another reason why every state needs ALAC bills. All 50 of them. Well, 49 if Calorinication wants sharia, let them have their cake and see what happens. Lioness *** California Politicians and Law Enforcement Support Sharia Law - Godfather Politics

Glenn Beck has experts discussing MB in America

This video is excellent, featuring Patrick Poole, Andrew McCarthy, and Stephen Coughlin as they comment on the status of MB infiltration in America. Thanks to Glenn Beck, who is the only one brave enough to put these men together and hear them. Prayers for all of these men go out, that they may be covered and protected by our heavenly Father above as they stare down evil and expose it for America.

You cannot say we have not been warned, from GBTV on 8/3/12.







Part 2 below. Must listen to the way to turn all this around... courage and holding elected officials ACCOUNTABLE.



http://web.gbtv.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=23576427