Tuesday, September 15, 2026

Bush’s Islamic Appeasement Greatly Damaged America


Last Thursday, President George W. Bush sat down with his former secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, to discuss the September 11, 2001, Islamic terror attacks on the United States.  While reflecting on his actions twenty-five years earlier, Bush went out of his way to defend Islam: “I also made it clear that Islam was a religion of peace, not a religion of war, and that these people subverted their religion.”  Bush’s absurd statement echoed a similarly absurd statement he made days after the attacks when he told the world, “Islam is peace,” even though the burned bodies of three thousand dead Americans strongly suggested otherwise.  There have been 50,000 Islamic terror attacks since 9/11.  Without question, Islam is a cult of conquest, misery, and war.

Bush’s Islamic appeasement angered me twenty-five years ago, and his continued appeasement infuriates me today.  I cannot believe that the man who asked Americans to go to war against an Islamic menace that threatened (and still threatens) the world can be so intellectually shallow and morally obtuse.  “Islam is a religion of peace,” is a disingenuous stock phrase that is too cute by half.  President Barack Obama loves to tell the same lie.  

While Americans fought and died in foreign lands in an effort to keep Islam’s homicidal evil from causing further harm to the United States, Bush and Obama resettled Muslims into America’s heartland.  Twenty-five years ago, the sight of a woman wearing a burqa in the Midwest would have shocked and worried passersby.  Today, it is too common for anyone to feign surprise.  Both the number of Muslims and the number of mosques in the United States have more than doubled since the Islamic terror attacks that changed our country permanently.  Bush told Americans that we had to fight the terrorists “over there” so that we would never again have to fight them “over here.”  While brave American warriors died “over there,” Bush and Obama betrayed those warriors’ sacrifice by inviting more Muslims “over here,” ensuring that Americans will continue to endure Islamic terror attacks until this existential threat is honestly recognized and neutralized.

President Bush is eighty years old, plenty old enough to have learned that he has no business telling Muslims what their “religion” means.  If he were telling black Americans what it means to be black, critics would rightfully accuse him of “whitesplaining.”  Does Bush believe himself to be an expert on the Quran?  Has he become a Texas imam or an “austere religious scholar” during retirement?  If not, then why does he insist on telling Americans that Islamic terrorists “subverted their religion”?  The opposite seems patently clear: Wherever the scourge of Islam stretches its poisonous tentacles, Islamic violence is certain.  Muhammad was a pedophile who encouraged the rape, torture, and murder of innocents.  It should be no surprise that pedophiles, rapists, and murderers consider that malevolent deviant a “prophet.”

Writer Antonio Graceffo wrote a well-researched essay this month describing in detail how Muslims are persecuting and murdering Christians across Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Asia.  Carrying out massacres against Christians with hammers, machetes, axes, and guns, Muslims are right now engaging in a genocide that corporate news media and Western governments entirely ignore.  In Nigeria, the Congo, Mozambique, Syria, Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Turkey, Algeria, and Indonesia, Muslims threaten Christian lives.  These are the barbaric conquerors whom Bush defends as noble representatives of the “religion of peace.”  No self-described Christian should stay silent while Muslims slaughter Christ’s followers around the world.  Somehow, Bush remains quiet about Islam’s unquenchable thirst for Christian blood.

Islamic bloodlust continues to exsanguinate much of Europe.  A recent German report shows that foreign migrants (most of whom are Muslim) are responsible for 47% of all violent crime in Bavaria.  Over 80% of North African asylum-seekers in Switzerland have been accused of committing crimes while in the country.  While British children beg the government not to resettle illegal immigrants into their tiny villages, the United Kingdom is granting settlement or citizenship to one new migrant every single minute.  

How is the British government combating this unsustainable invasion?  The Home Office hands each Islamic migrant a nine-page booklet explaining that rape and pedophilia are illegal and that women have the same rights as men.  In this behavioral guide written primarily for Muslims, the British government outlines how it is not okay to beat women, mutilate girls’ genitals, have sex with children or unconscious women, or leave babies alone.  The document further advises Muslims that “women must consent to sex in all situations” and “are allowed to work, study, and make their own decisions” without “permission from men.” 

In a section on rape, Muslim men are informed that it is not appropriate to threaten someone into having sex or to have sex with someone who is “asleep, drunk, or unable to respond.”  The British government warns Islamic immigrants: “If you have sex with someone without their consent, this is called rape.  Rape is a serious crime in the UK.  You could go to prison, lose your support and accommodation, and it will affect your asylum claim.”  Furthermore, there are no exceptions for child rape: “Even if they say yes, it is still illegal.”  Finally, Britain’s new Muslims are reminded that it is not acceptable to intimidate or abuse people or take sexual pictures or videos of strangers without their consent.  These “religion of peace” people sure do need a lot of help figuring out that it’s not okay to rape or beat women and children!  Perhaps the Brits should stop dropping them off in rural villages where they quickly outnumber the locals ten to one.

A rational person should have no problem understanding Islam as a threat to the world.  President Bush held a position of immense power from which he could see Muslim atrocities as key features of that cult belief system.  The fact that he remains too much of a moral coward to confront and denounce Islam’s murderers, rapists, and terrorists with clarity and resolve has contributed greatly to the current moral confusion plaguing the United States.  

We now have members of Congress who openly support Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists.  A terrorist-sympathizing Muslim is the mayor of New York City twenty-five years after his “religion of peace” friends flew hijacked commercial airliners into the Twin Towers and murdered thousands of civilians.  Another terrorist-sympathizing Muslim running for the U.S. Senate from Michigan agrees with Muslim members of Congress that 9/11 was worse for Muslims who subsequently endured “Islamophobia.”  When Islamic terrorists aren’t trying to murder Americans with their vehicles, bombs, firearms, or knives, they’re rioting in the streets and demanding “justice” for Hamas animals who rape and kill women and behead and microwave babies.  

Bush’s inability to identify Islam as a murderous cult ideology has exacerbated the Islamic supremacy problem in the United States.  In preparation for the twenty-fifth anniversary of 9/11 this year, public school administrators instructed teachers in Fairfax County, Virginia, to avoid associating the attacks with Islam.  Teachers were even told to treat Muslims as heroes and to create “safe spaces” for Muslim students.  Virginia’s Democrat governor commemorated 9/11 by ignoring the act of Islamic mass murder and pretending that three thousand Americans died from some kind of inexplicable natural disaster.  While New York City’s Muslim mayor laughed during the 9/11 Ground Zero ceremony, New York’s Democrat governor left early, so that she could appear on cable news.  Meanwhile, Gen Z Americans are largely indifferent to the September 11, 2001, Islamic terror attacks on the United States.  Some even celebrate Osama bin Laden.

Americans promised never to forget Islam’s war against the West.  Twenty-five years later, it is obvious that too many did forget.  President Bush’s moral equivocations are partially to blame for this travesty.


Podcast thread for Sept 15

 


too busy.

Welcome to Saudi Afraidia!


The kingdom in the sand shows that it has no ability to defeat the drug-addled Houthis in Yemen.

The American relationship with Saudi Arabia goes back over 80 years. In 1945, President Roosevelt met with King Saud aboard a U.S. naval vessel in the Suez Canal. The meeting started the strategic relationship between the countries, as the U.S. wanted guaranteed access to Saudi oil for its growing military and economy. King Saud expressed his opposition to any Jewish homeland in the region and told Roosevelt to put the Jews in the soon-to-be former Axis countries. Roosevelt promised not to support any effort in creating a Jewish homeland in the region.

So is Saudi Arabia a good ally of the United States? The question is not merely a rhetorical one: Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) apparently asked Donald Trump TWICE recently to bomb Houthi fighters that have overrun Saudi-supported positions in Yemen. The Houthis are both crushing the Saudi-backed forces and also flinging missiles into Saudi Arabia proper, causing serious damage to their oil infrastructure.

When I was a kid, Saudi Arabia actually came up frequently when there was a suggested arms sale to the kingdom. Since we didn’t have to deal with trans, DEI, and Islamic terrorism, the question of selling advanced weapons that could harm Israel was the stuff of Senate hearings and nightly news. So what do the Saudis have from the U.S. today? The Saudi air force has 917 planes and 30,000 soldiers. Their inventory includes:

  • 232 F-15s of several variations
  • 16 U.S. tankers of various makes
  • 6 AWACS
  • 80 Helicopters, half of them Apache Attack Helicopters

These numbers do not include over 150 Eurofighters and Tornadoes that round out their fighter wings. The Saudis are awaiting their F-35s, and did I mention the 300 Abrams tanks that the Saudi army fields?

With so much advanced American firepower, why are the Saudis having such fits with the Iranian-backed, khat-chewing Houthi fighters? The main reason is that it’s not the equipment but the men using them. Israel knows it needs to win on the battlefield in order to exist. It takes American tech and often modifies it with “Blue & White” systems. It also trains its pilots, sailors, and soldiers to win: there is no alternative. But the modern Saudis have never really been threatened. Saddam said that he would take them after Kuwait but made no real effort to conquer his neighbor to the south. The Saudis may have U.S. tech, but they no longer have a warrior mentality. Israel, out of necessity, flew thousands of kilometers to bomb the Houthis and succeeded in wiping out many of their commanders. The Saudis are far closer but are feckless on the battlefield and thus turned to Donald Trump to send some American firepower. The president declined to help them.

So is Saudi Arabia a real friend of the U.S.? It is interesting to note that in a lawsuit brought by 9/11 families against the country, Judge George Daniels of the Southern District of New York refused to throw the case out. He said that there is credible evidence to suggest Saudi involvement in the terror attacks, allowing the case to move forward. Were the Saudis actively involved in helping their nationals get to the United States? If they were not involved, were they aware of the plot but did not provide the U.S. with information prior to the destruction? The Saudis see their relationship with the Americans as transactional: we sell them oil and get rich, and we get from them military and other assistance. Their only true commitment is to Allah and jihad. They knew how to stick it to the U.S. in 1973 during the Arab Oil Embargo, and they have made no effort to join the Abraham Accords, though Donald Trump has said their receipt of F-35s will be dependent on their doing the same.

The Wahhabi version of Islam practiced in the country is extreme, even by Islamic standards. Christian and Jewish soldiers sent to Saudi Arabia in the buildup to Desert Storm were told not to show religious symbols openly. I mentioned previously that a sitting U.S. senator was at the time denied entry due to his passport having an Israeli entry stamp in it. MBS does the minimum in order to get the West off his back: let Israeli commercial flights overfly the country and give women the steering wheel to drive. When push comes to shove, he will never abandon Islamic principles for the sake of improved relationships with the West, and certainly not with Israel. There have been murmurs that Israel could help the Saudis with the Houthis but only if the kingdom joins its neighbors in the Abraham Accords. The Saudi leadership would rather lose men, equipment, money, and face than make a deal with the Yahud. Their Jew hatred has been strong since before Roosevelt’s meeting with Faud. They were for years the financial backers of Hamas and were opponents of the fake peace-making between Arafat and Israel.

George W. Bush made a massive blunder when he helped repatriate top Saudis, including Bin Laden family members, at a time when there were no commercial flights. He also failed as a leader when he whitewashed Islamic thinking behind the murder of 3,000 Americans when he called Islam a “religion of peace.” For years, al-Qaeda/Islam had been attacking: the USS Cole, several embassies in Africa, the first World Trade Center bombing. After the massive attacks that brought down the Twin Towers, Bush should have invoked a new crusade: to crush the threat of Islam against the West. There should be far fewer Muslims in the U.S. today than there were in 2001; the opposite is true. And we see Muslims running for office who are cool with 9/11 and have made it clear that their allegiance is to Sharia and not U.S. law. Mark Steyn spent 20 years screaming from the rooftops: how can the Global War on Terror succeed if you are importing into Manchester, Paris, and New York the same folks you are trying to kill in Kandahar? Islam by default is anti-Christian, anti-West, anti-Jewish and anti-Israel. Sure, their politicians know how to smile and how to shake a hated hand when required. But their goals are the same as the hijackers who murdered American citizens in cold blood: to end the West and “Christendom” as realized in Europe and the U.S.

Good on Donald Trump for blowing off MBS. President Trump is the most loyal friend one can have; he also has a good memory. If the Saudis interfered with U.S. efforts against Iran, he will be in no hurry to bail them out against the drugged-out Houthis. Trump likes performance, and when the Saudis show that they are losers with the best fighters in the world, then he has no need to either respect or help them. They turned him down several times over the Abraham Accords, one of his signature foreign policy successes. Why rush to save the Saudis when they can’t save themselves against a ragtag enemy? The problem for us all is that the Saudis' failures have allowed the Houthis to better position themselves to harm international shipping in the Red Sea.

The U.S.-Saudi partnership has gone on for decades. The U.S. having large hydrocarbon resources has removed one trump card that the Saudis have had over Americans for decades: they could close the spigot or raise prices. The U.S. does not need the Saudis as much as it once did. The Saudis still refuse to violate their religious views to make peace with Israel or even make war together against the Houthis. The Saudis are losers on the battlefield, and Donald Trump does not suffer losers.


🎭 π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


Carney Wants to Make Canada an 'Associate Member' of the EU. What Does That Mean for the US?

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney wants to make his nation an 'associate member' of the European Union (EU). The move follows the breakdown of trade talks with the U.S. There is no "associate member" of the EU today; it would be a new and — to use Carney's own words — "unique alliance."

Here's more:

The EU, which has not been flexible about membership rules in the past, is open to the ‌idea of granting Canada a yet-to-be-created status of associate membership, the newspaper reported, citing unnamed officials both from the EU and Canada.

"We're not looking to become a member of the European Union," Carney said.

"What we are looking — and will begin discussions for — is a unique alliance between Canada and the European Union," he told reporters at the Toronto International Film Festival. "We share the same values, we have the same priorities and we have very complementary strengths."

Carney's office confirmed on Saturday he will travel to France and Britain next week. He will address the European Parliament in Strasbourg and attend EU President Ursula von der Leyen's State of ‌the European Union address.

Canada would not join the EU, of course, but a relationship would allow for easier movement of goods and services between Canada and Europe, as well as easier collaboration on projects like undersea cables and data centers and visa-free, live-and-work access in France for Canadians in the EU.

That's a fair point. Europe relies heavily on American support, too.

A Canadian weighed in and called it a "remarkably stupid economic strategy."

Mathison wrote, "So what exactly do we gain from some invented “associate membership” beyond CETA? Potentially European regulatory obligations, political entanglements, financial contributions and pressure to harmonize Canadian rules with decisions made in Brussels, all to sell more goods across an ocean to markets that cannot duplicate the geographic advantage of the United States. Norway rejected EU membership twice. Iceland opened accession negotiations and eventually walked away without joining. Both understood that you can have close economic relations with Europe without surrendering unnecessary national autonomy."

Seems like a less than stellar deal.

Canada, as a country, is poorer than Alabama, and the EU isn't far behind. This seems more like rearranging the deck chairs on Titanic than sound policy.

As far as the U.S. is concerned, the impacts will likely be minimal. This isn't membership in the EU, it will take years on joint projects and visa-free work, and Canada still exports a large majority of its goods to the U.S.


Pentagon Admits On-Orbit Space Weapons for First Time

In what can only be described as something of a surprising development, the Secretary of the Air Force, Troy Meink, announced on Monday that the United States has already fielded on-orbit space defense weapons

"Today, we continue to ensure we remain ready to meet the challenges of evolving threats wherever they exist,” Mink said during his Monday morning speech at the Air, Space, Cyber conference here. “This is why the United States now has, on orbit, space-control weapons, capable of defending the joint force against hostile adversaries.”

Top service officials have typically been cagey when asked about U.S. space weapons, often citing national-security concerns. It also marks a major change in rhetoric. John Raymond, the service’s first chief of space operations, proclaimed in 2022 that “our primary purpose is to deter war.”

The nature of the weapons was not revealed, but the statement that they are "...capable of defending the joint force" implies that they are defensive in nature or, at least, are intended to be used in defense. A weapon is a weapon, however, and one used for defense today can be used for offense tomorrow.

Best guess as to the nature of the weapons described is that they are some form of electronic warfare devices, possibly jammers, with the slight chance of them being a directed-energy weapon, like a laser.

The announcement did come as a surprise.

Defense experts were shocked by Meink’s admission on Monday morning, and said it will likely push the U.S. military’s main adversaries in space to acknowledge their capabilities, too.

“Well, that's huge, because I don't think any US government official has ever said that before,” said Victoria Samson, the Secure World Foundation's chief director of space security and stability. “The US also now has to accept the Chinese and Russians doing/saying the same. I don't think that this is going to be in the interest of US national security.”

Here's the thing: These may indeed be in the interest of U.S. national security. Russia and China don't need any prompting from the United States to start placing some kinds of weapons in orbit. This may prompt America's geopolitical rivals to work faster, but a key to winning any contest is, as the old saying goes, "getting there the firstest with the mostest," and that would appear to be the meaning of this development.

Secretary Meink also announced developments on the United States' next-generation Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM), which is in line to replace the aging Minuteman III missiles.

On a separate front, he also announced during his remarks to the conference on Monday morning that the U.S. military is making significant advances on next-generation intercontinental ballistic (ICBM) missile development capable of firing nuclear weapons around the world.

Specifically, Mr. Meink said that the Sentinel rocket — a modern replacement for the Minuteman (ICBM) — will have its first launchpad test in 2027.

At present, there are 400 operational Minuteman III ICBMs in the American arsenal, each capable of carrying a W78, 335-kiloton warhead, or a W87, 300-kiloton warhead. The Minuteman III was designed to carry multiple warheads, but each was reduced to carry only a single device to comply with various arms-reduction agreements. Presumably, the Sentinel will have similar capabilities.

We do indeed live in interesting times. Now, the Space Force has more to do than model their new prospective uniforms.


Former CIA Director John Brennan Subpoenaed as “Target” of Grand Jury for Testimony October 15th


According to his attorney, former CIA Director John Brennan has been subpoenaed to appear Oct. 15 in Fort Pierce, Florida, as part of a Justice Department investigation into alleged conspiracies against Donald Trump.

Brennan’s involvement in the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy is well documented. Brennan constructed the fraudulent Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that sought to fabricate intelligence analysis (Ciaramella) and frame Russia for interfering in the 2016 election. The overall effort was to impede the Trump administration through a series of fraudulent and malicious investigations.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former CIA Director John Brennan has been subpoenaed to testify next month before a Florida grand jury as part of a Justice Department investigation into whether former law enforcement and intelligence officials conspired against President Donald Trump, one of his lawyers said Monday.

Ken Wainstein, an attorney for Brennan, disclosed in a court filing that prosecutors last Thursday presented him with a subpoena for Brennan to appear Oct. 15 before a grand jury in Fort Pierce, Florida.

He said he was told that the subpoena relates to a “far-reaching” criminal probe examining a loosely defined theory that the government officials who have investigated Trump over the last decade, including over Russia election interference in 2016 and his more recent retention of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate, conspired to deprive Trump of his civil rights. The subpoena to Brennan is among a flurry that have been issued in recent weeks.

[…] The member of the investigative team with whom Wainstein spoke was Kurt Olsen. (more)

You might note from the current reporting of the subpoena that after Brennan/Wainstein initially sought to challenge the 2025 subpoena, they inadvertently revealed information that CTH noted could lead to a withdrawal of the demand while the Florida investigators reviewed testimony from some of the names contained within the Brennan defense letter.  That is exactly what appears to have happened.

In 2025, lawyers representing former CIA Director John Brennan sent proactive letters to the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida {SEE HERE}.  However, some of the information included in the letters intended to be exculpatory is actually damning against their defense position.

You have to go deep in the weeds to see it, but if you understand the details of the events, the information being revealed by Brennan’s lawyers is the opposite of helpful to his case.  As an example, there is a citation included in a footnote of the December 22, 2025, [fn #20 page 6] letter that links to a March 31, 2022, letter sent to John Durham.

Here’s page 6 of the 2025 letter.

Compare the underlined section to the 2022 letter sent to John Durham.

In 2025, Brennan is telling the Florida court the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) conclusion was confirmed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller in a “very serious review.”  However, in 2022 Brennan told John Durham that Robert Mueller never interviewed him or offered an assessment of the ICA; Mueller just regurgitated it.

So, which is it?

These contradictions are throughout both of the letters when you compare them side-by-side.  In 2022, former CIA Director John Brennan was trying to escape the Durham review.  In 2025, Brennan is trying to escape a grand jury review.

[We are aware that the U.S Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Jason Reding QuiΓ±ones, has access to the CTH public library of research into all of these historic events.]

There are other citations in the 2022 letter that are certainly worth reviewing, because the legally binding statements made by John Brennan at the time have been shown to be false in 2025.

Another of the claims, in the 2022 letter to John Durham, highlights why it was critical for the CIA to assist in the capture and arrest of Julian Assange in 2019.

[SOURCE – Page 7]

The lawyers representing John Brennan in the above 2022 letter apparently did not know the DNC emails were provably not hacked by Russia, unless they are claiming that Seth Rich (DNC staff) and Julian Assange (Wikileaks) were working for the Russian government.

John Brennan asserts a “definitive determination” that Russia was involved in the theft of the DNC emails, and across the intelligence community that determination was “unanimous.”  That assertion, by Brennan, underpinning the “Russian interference narrative”, opens up the entire DNC email issue for Jason QuiΓ±ones to explore.

The DNC hired Crowdstrike to investigate the leak/hack; the James Comey FBI never looked at the DNC servers; and Crowdstrike told the Senate there was no evidence of a hack or outside intrusion.  Perhaps QuiΓ±ones will finally highlight these contradictions and get to the bottom of it? Because, after all, this is part of Brennan’s ICA defense.

What Brennan did not realize we would discover when he wrote the letter in 2022:

What the evidence released by Tulsi Gabbard showed was a focused targeting operation intended to fabricate a false premise by the United States Intelligence Community, centered around a fraudulent CIA analysis (ICA) led by John Brennan, and organized through the Office of former DNI James Clapper.  The op was green-lighted by Barack Obama, as a way to impede the agenda of incoming President Donald Trump.  All three branches of government eventually collaborated on the scheme.

In December of 2016, President Obama turned to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan with a request to change the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) and blame the Russians for election interference in the prior presidential election. Brennan gave the task of assembling the fraudulent intel to a CIA analyst named Julia Gurganus.

Subsequently, inside the CIA the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and the Directorate of Analysis began working on a pretext that would create the impression for the misleading Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), as demanded by Obama, Clapper and Brennan – ultimately constructed by Julia Gurganus.

Inside the National Intelligence Council, one of the key figures who helped create the ICA fabrication was a CIA analyst named Eric Ciaramella.

You might remember the name Eric Ciaramella from the 2019 impeachment effort against President Trump.  However, in 2016/2017 Eric Ciaramella was a CIA deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia on the CIA’s National Intelligence Council, at the time the fraudulent Intelligence Community Assessment was created.

In 2025, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released a tranche of background information, [114 pages of information], showing how the Obama administration, intentionally and with great purpose, fabricated the Russia election interference story. DNI Tulsi Gabbard Press Release HereFiles Containing Evidence Here

What would Julia Gurganus and Eric Ciaramella have to say about putting the ICA together?

I suspect Quinones has likely pulled grand jury testimony from Gurganus and Ciaramella, and now the subpoena for Brennan is back on.