The Temple Mount is in our Hands: The Legacy of the 1967 Six Day War

The 28th of Iyar in the Hebrew Calendar falls on May 23, 2017. It marks the 50th anniversary of the June Six Days War in 1967 that resulted in the incredibly swift victory by Israeli forces against the massed armies and air forces of the United Arab Republic led by charismatic Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser. Nasser had led the creation of the secular Pan-Arab movement encompassing Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq. He was playing off Moscow versus Washington. He sought to ‘erase Israel from the Map of the World’ in revenge for the defeats in both the Israeli War for Independence in 1948-49 and the abortive Suez Operation in 1956 with the UK and France.

Nasser was seeking a secular socialist Arab empire. That is in sharp contrast to Israel’s current nemesis, Iran, that adopted the same slogan. It is seeking a Pan Islamic conquest of the Middle East and beyond with the aid of nuclear weapons, missiles and proxy fighters, Shiite Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthi in Yemen.

Nasser ratcheted up his game plan in May 1967, demanding that UNEF troops withdraw from the Sinai so that his mobilized Army could replace them. He created a causus belli with the closing the Straits of Tiran, at the mouth of the Red Sea., to Israeli navigation. That prompted US President Johnson and British Prime Minister Harold Wilson to consider forming an international  flotilla to break the impasse.  Israel’s Defense Minister Moshe Dayan and IDF Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin had other plans.  The country mobilized its reservists, deployed its forward forces, girded for possible action.

On the morning of June 5th, Israel launched virtually its entire air force of French made Dassault Mirage fighter bombers, Fouga close air support aircraft and US A-6 fighters in a brilliant attack from the Mediterranean Sea. It caught and destroying the Egyptian air force unawares at breakfast time. Later Syrian and Jordanian air forces would be similarly decimated. That enabled a breakthrough in Gaza and the Sinai passes that facilitated armored units reaching the Suez bypassing struggling Egyptian forces. Israeli forces in the north fought their way up and took the strategic Golan Heights from Syria aided by intelligence from Israeli spy Eli Cohen who had penetrated their military. His identity discovered he was executed in 1965, after providing Israel with key information on Syria’s forces.

What to do about Jerusalem was initially left undecided. The immediate question was what to do about the Jordanians who had occupied east Jerusalem illegally for 19 years following the 1949 Armistice. Initially concerned about the opposition it would meet from the Jordanians and in response to shelling of West Jerusalem, the decision was made on June 5th to send the 55th Parachute and Jerusalem Brigades to enter the fray. That culminated in liberating Israel’s ancient capital on the morning of June 7, 1967 with a radio message from paratroop commander Col. Mordechai “Motti” Gur, “the Temple Mount is in our Hands.” The Six Days of War ended on June 10, 1967. Israel had increased its territory by more than three times. Much of that would be returned in subsequent disengagement agreements and peace accords with both Egypt and Jordan in 1979 and 1994.

50 years later there is a legacy of unresolved issues: the question of Israel’s sovereignty over its eternal capital, the fixing of ‘secure and just’ borders under UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, Israel’s legal rights to “close settlements on the land” under International law, and the impasse over a possible peace agreement between the Palestinians and Israel. Also outstanding is the matter of a possible move of the existing US Embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem enabled under a 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Law passed by the US Congress. However, it has been but waived every six months by four US Presidents because of ‘national security issues’, meaning resolution of the Palestinian- Israeli conflict.

On the cusp of the 50th anniversary of the June Six Days of War, President Trump is making his first major overseas trip to the Middle East and Europe starting on Friday, May 19th. His first stop will be in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia where he will be addressing a summit convened by King Salman with 50 Muslim Countries, members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Separately, he will be discussing possible military aid to the Saudis and the Emirati members of the Gulf Coordination Council concerned over the threat from Iran across the Persian Gulf. He may come away from that encounter with possible proposals for reigniting the moribund peace process between the Palestinians and Israel.

His 26 hours in Jerusalem will include the first American Presidential visit to the Western Wall of the Temple Mount. He will lay a wreath at the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial and hold a private dinner with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Present at that dinner will be the new US Ambassador to Israel, the Hon. David Friedman, who in contrast to the President’s 2016 election campaign promises, has taken up his seat in the existing Tel Aviv Embassy and the official residence in Herziliya.

Against this background, we convened another in the periodic 1330am WEBY Middle East round table discussions hosted by Mike Bates of “Your Turn” with  Shoshana Bryen, senior director of the Washington, DC-based Jewish Policy Center and Jerry Gordon, Senior Editor of the New English Review.  The Center’s Spring 2017 Quarterly edition of inFocus, “Six Days and Fifty Years“, was devoted to a review of historical documents and analysis of the legacy of that significant conflict

Mike Bates overlooking Kotel and Dome of the Rock Mosque on Temple Mount 3-2014

Mike Bates

Mike Bates:  Good afternoon and welcome to Your Turn. This is Mike Bates. This hour is one of our periodic Middle East round table discussions and I have with me in the studio Jerry Gordon, Senior Editor of the New English Review and its blog, “the Iconoclast”. Jerry welcome.

JBG headshot 1-26-14 SMALL

Jerry Gordon

Jerry Gordon:  Glad to be back.

Bates:  And joining us by telephone Shoshana Bryen. She is Senior Director of the Jewish Policy Center in Washington. Shoshana welcome.

Shoshana Bryen 2017 headshot

Shoshana Bryen

Shoshana Bryen: Thank you Mike.

Bates: So a lot is happening in the Middle East always but this week particularly it seems like it’s even more active than usual. President Donald Trump will be visiting Israel on the eve of Jerusalem Day commemorating the liberation of Israel’s capital during the Six-Day War.  As we approach the 50th anniversary, Monday the 22nd, the President will be in Israel. Shoshana, what’s your overall take?

Bryen: Mike it’s not actually his first foreign visit because his first visit is to Saudi Arabia and I think that’s great. I’m really pleased that the President is going to go to Saudi Arabia. He is going to meet with the leaders of other Arab countries and bring that information to Israel and I think that’s terrific. The largest problem in the region is Iran. We get fixated on Palestinians but the problem is Iran. This will help them bridge some of the gaps between the Gulf State positions and the Israeli positions and could lead to very interesting things in the future.

Bates: Do you expect any activity, anything significant on the big elephant in the room and that is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?

Bryen: No. I think the Presidents take a position saying let’s start working on this. Let’s think about this. Let’s talk about this. I don’t think you will see anything major pop up regarding the Palestinians.

Gordon: Shoshana, what is this spat that has popped up in the press between Netanyahu and Trump? How manufactured is that and really what is the background for it?

Bryen: How about a hundred percent manufactured.  The first question was, is Jerusalem in Israel? Does Israel have control over Jerusalem and somebody said no; Jerusalem is not in Israel. The White House very quickly put out a statement that saying this was “not authorized communication and comments about the Western Wall do not represent the position of the United States and certainly not of the President.” That was probably the fastest White House statement I have ever seen, so I think you have people who are trying to look for trouble and if they can’t find any they will make some. There was also another comment that didn’t quite make the same level of press. Secretary of State Tillerson said something about “Israel and Palestine.”  So the Palestinians said, “Oh wow, this is great!” Immediately Tillerson said, “No that wasn’t meant to do that.” That was a mistake. So, I don’t think the problem is with the President and I don’t think the problem is with Secretary Tillerson. I think the problem is looking for ways to embarrass the President or ways to embarrass Israel.

Bates: Many of these communication mistakes are coming from within the administration. Do you see the White House as being undisciplined?

Bryen: No, I don’t think it’s undisciplined. I think they still have an awful lot of holdover personnel particularly in the case of Israel are not going to be friends of either the President or Israel.  If it was up to me I would ask for the resignations of every single person that worked there in the prior administration.

Bates: What is the symbolism of the visit, specifically to the Western Wall? Do you anticipate and that it probably will occur, do you anticipate that Donald Trump will visit the Western Wall? If so I understand that he would be the first sitting President to do so and if he does, do you expect him to be accompanied by Prime Minister Netanyahu?

Bryen: On the first one, yes, I do think he will go to the Western Wall. I think he will set that precedent and be the first sitting President to do so. Whether he is accompanied by the Prime Minister is very hard for me to tell. By previous common understanding, American officials are accompanied by the Chief Rabbi of Israel. This is a decision that will be made by the President and the Prime Minister and you can second guess it but I won’t.

Bates: Can you give us some insight on what the pros and cons of a dual versus simultaneous visit would be? Why do it, and why not do it?

Bryen: There are people who say that if he goes with the Prime Minister of Israel who is a political figure, it’s like asserting Israeli sovereignty at that space. It’s as if the President accepts Israeli sovereignty there. There are people who don’t want that. There are people who do. There are people who will say, no, President Trump hasn’t agreed that Israel is the sovereign authority in Jerusalem. However, you can’t ignore the fact that this is the holiest place in the Jewish world and so the President has visited a holy Jewish place with a Jewish Prime Minister so you can play it either way.

Gordon: Shoshana there was a very interesting op-ed in  The Wall Street Journal by Northwestern University Law School Professor Eugene Kontorovich. He is the architect of a very successful anti-BDS law that has been passed by several states.  He drew attention to Russia’s recognition of Israel’s capital in West Jerusalem.  What were his arguments to support U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s eternal capital.

Bryen: Essentially Kontorovich said if a major power in the world can do that then the United States can do it as well and he is correct. However, the Russian statement is not as definitive or as positive I think as Kontorovich paints it in The Wall Street Journal. The Russian statement says, “We reaffirm the U.N. approved principles for a Palestinian-Israeli settlement which include the status of East Jerusalem as the capital of the future Palestinian state. At the same time, we must state that in this context we view West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.”

The problem here is that if you see East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state in those kinds of blunt terms you are essentially making a case to re-divide the city. If you re-divide the city all the Jewish patrimony stays on the wrong side. I think the Russians were making a statement of principle. West Jerusalem for the Jews, East Jerusalem for the Palestinians, that’s probably not the best way to deal with Jerusalem. At the end of the day the Jewish people need to have access and control of Jewish holy places, so I’m not thrilled with that statement.

Bates: Do you anticipate that the United States Embassy will move to Jerusalem?

Bryen: No.

Bates: Ever? Well, maybe ever is too long a time, I mean in the next five years

Bryen: Yes, right, never. You know I don’t know about five years. I do believe the President will use the waiver this time. I would point out that President Trump used the waiver process in the case of Iran a few weeks ago to buy himself some time on the specifics of what he wanted to do with Iran.  Several people in Washington went crazy and they said,” Oh, he’s not going to get rid of the nuclear deal and he is caving on Iran.” No he wasn’t. He used it as an opportunity to have the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense begin pointing out other bad things Iran does. It’s not just the nuclear deal. So the waiver is a mechanism for deciding how you want to handle a sticky situation. In the case of Iran, it was well used to begin a process of pointing out that Iran is just basically a bad country.

In the case of Israel which is a friendly country and an ally, it still gives you an opportunity to push off the decision and do other things. What I want to know is, what are the other things? My greatest hope is he will use the time to talk to the Palestinians honestly about their behavior and make them understand that their behavior is incompatible with peace. If he uses it that way  – give one take one,/take one give one – he’s probably on the road to something useful.

Gordon: Shoshana, Trump met with the infamous PA President Mahmoud Abbas in the Oval Office. Among other things he criticized him for doing was paying stipends to Israeli jailed Palestinian terrorists like Marwan Barghouti and their families estimated at over four hundred million dollars annually. Are any of these funds coming from U.S. taxpayers and what evidence do we have of the Administration and Congress trying to stop such abuses?

Bryen: I must say the money that goes to terrorists does not come from U.S. distributions.  We are very clear about it because one hundred percent of our money is tied up in  projects. We have projects for economic development, improving water access, healthcare and education. We also pay Palestinian creditors certain of them directly. The United States pays the Israeli Electric Authority because the Palestinians don’t pay their bills. So U.S. money is not going to terrorists. That’s point one. Point two is that in the meantime there are bills in the House and Senate to cut off U.S. funds to the Palestinians. There is one by Texas Senator Ted Cruz, there is one by Lindsay Graham, there is corresponding legislation in the House. The issue that I see here is that if we cut off our money and we stop those programs in infrastructure, water access, and health, the Palestinian Authority is unlikely to fund them so they will wither on the vine. They will die. Maybe that’s good maybe it’s not good, those programs will go away. The Palestinian Authority will continue to use its other money – UNWRA money, EU money, Saudi, Qatari, PLO, direct tax money, any other way that they get money.  That money will continue to  go to terrorist salaries so we may be cutting off our noses here despite our faces.

Gordon: Shoshana there was news in The Wall Street Journal about a Gulf Cooperation Council plan based on the 2002 Saudi plan for recognition of Israel. Why is that a nonstarter?

Bryen: It’s a nonstarter because it’s backwards. It inverts the process. UN Resolution 242, which is the cornerstone of Israel’s security emanating from the ’67 war, requires that the Arab states go first because they were the ones who waged three wars in 1948, 1956 and 1967. They are required, according to the UN, to terminate their states of belligerency and respect the legitimacy, sovereignty and territorial integrity of all the states in the region. The only one that matters in that context is Israel. After that there are supposed to be boundaries drawn. The Saudi plan says that if Israel withdraws from all the territory it acquired in ’67 – which by the way would include the Golan Heights today.  Can you imagine what would happen if the Syrians were on the top of the Golan Heights today? If Israel would withdraw from all the territory acquired in ’67 including Jerusalem and the holy sites, the Arab peace plan says, after that, the Arabs will consider their 242 obligations. It’s backwards. It won’t do.

Bates: Are you seeing any forward progress in the peace process at all?

Bryen: What’s the peace process?

Bates: Now that’s a good question.

Bryen: Look if you are talking about Palestinians and Israelis, no there is no peace process because the Palestinians will be the last people to make concessions to Israel. They need the backup of the Arab states who pay their salaries so they will never go first. Now, if you are talking about the broader region, where Israel fits in, how the Saudis, the Emirates and Jordan feel, there  may be some movement. There is movement because the Gulf states see their primary enemy as Iran, and on that subject Israel is a potential source of assistance on intelligence,  weapons, tactics and training. There is a place for Israel in the region if you leave the Palestinians out of it for the moment.  That was the suggestion we got when President Trump stood with Prime Minister Netanyahu in Washington and it was a very good vibe. They were going to lift their eyes, they were going to look at the region, they were going to see where the spaces were for movement and I think they will still do that.

Bates: Specifically with the Palestinian issue there was a recent revision to the Hamas Charter that allegedly recognized the Israel.  People have touted it as a complete reversal of the position of the Palestinians.  Specifically, Hamas,  who previously had called for the destruction of Israel.  Their revised Charter isn’t calling for that anymore.  The Palestinians want peace.  So, if peace doesn’t happen,  it’s now the Jews’ fault.  After those headlines Hamas came back and told their people, “We said that but we didn’t really mean it.”  How do you interpret this revised Hamas Charter?

Bryen: You know what Mike? I don’t require interpretation at all. Go straight to the text of the new document.  Forget about statements afterwards. In the new document it says:

Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine from the river to the sea without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without rejecting any Palestinian rights. Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem along the lines of the June 4th, 1967 Armistice line with the return of the refugees displaced from their homes in 1949 to be the formula of national consensus.

In other words, no Israel. If the Palestinian Authority wants to talk to the Jews and if they accept a fully independent Palestinian state as a temporary measure that’s okay.  They are agreeing to accept Palestine wherever it gets liberated but “river to the sea” means all of it.  Anyone who is looking for anything else it’s not in there. It’s pretense, it’s all made it up. Hamas was making a single pitch to the Palestinian Authority saying, “If you want to negotiate with the Zionists you can, but it won’t be the end of the war.”

Bates: What is so striking about that is the new Charter is overt deception. It wouldn’t be deception at all to those who are paying attention, so why was this celebrated?

Bryen: Because people see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear and nobody who read it said any of those things. All they heard was you could have a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Jerusalem and it’s not the end of life. It’s not, it’s a stage in the destruction of Israel and I think the Israelis take that extremely seriously. You know you can’t account for people who read into these things what they want to. You really should go to the text and the text is clear.

Gordon: Shoshana, the Jewish Policy Center, where you are Senior Director published a rather interesting monograph. I commend it for our listeners to obtain a copy. It’s all about the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the June Six-Day War, 1967. One of the more important documents included was written by the late Professor Eugene Rostov of Yale Law School who formerly was a Senior State Department Official during the Johnson Administration. He had a hand in drafting the provisions of UN Security Resolution 242. What were his basic arguments about Israel’s international legal rights for “secure and just borders” and “close settlement on the land”?

Bryen: His single most important point was the British mandate. A mandate is a mission to do something. In this case, the mandate was for the establishment in Palestine, in their historic home. The British got the mandate to do that and the Mandate called for “closed settlement on the land” by Jews.  It was an invitation to Jews to settle in Palestine. A lot of places became states in the 20th century became states because they consolidated territory by war or by political means.  There are lots of reasons the places became states, but only one place in the world is a state because the countries of the United Nations wanted to make it one. Because of the mandate; the UN invited Jews to come and live in Palestine as their national home.  The Jews relied on that promise that the UN wanted them to come to Palestine and create the national homeland for the Jewish people.

Rostov feared that if the UN and the West  betray those commitments, “it would take a long step toward dissolving the world’s community as organized by the United Nations.”

The UN didn’t give the Jews their interest in Palestine. Palestine is the return of indigenous people to their homeland.  The UN wanted it and they helped to create it and they invited the Jews and made promises to the Jews.

The third point which is a little different than the other two,  is the League of Nations and then the United Nations did not see the territories as “Arab.” They are not “Arab territories” so anyone who says the Jews “came to the Arab territories” or the UN “took Arab territories for the Jews”, this is not correct. The territories in that region have been occupied by the non-Arab Ottomans for five hundred years and in those five hundred years all kinds of people lived there. Kurds, Jews, Turkmen, Baluchi, Yazidi – all kinds of people lived there.  Israel was not created out of  “Arab land”  in the eyes of the UN.  It was created out of the remnants of an empire that was dissolved, and that strengthens the Jewish claim to the piece of land that they have or to other lands that they wish to have.

Bates: Jerry, we are rapidly approaching the 50th anniversary of the Six-Day War, June 5th through June 10th, 1967. As a result, Israel expanded their country significantly having captured the Gaza, the Golan Heights, the Sinai and the West Bank.  We understand there is a documentary that will be playing in theaters across the country on Tuesday night, May 23rd. What do you know about that documentary?

Gordon: It is a docudrama produced by CBN and it focuses on the struggle and breakthrough into Jerusalem of the 55th Parachute Brigade of the IDF headed by then Colonel Mordechai “Motti” Gur.  I want to read an excerpt out of a book about Jerusalem and the breakthrough that will give you a sense of the drama that occurred. Simon Sebeg- Montefiore’s book, Jerusalem: The Biography captures the climactic moment of liberation during the June Six days of War in June 1967.  Note this excerpt published by the National Post, “The Temple Mount is in our Hands”:

First the Israelis bombarded the Augusta Victoria ridge using napalm, the Jordanians fled. Then Israeli paratroopers took the Mount of Olives and moved down towards the Garden of Gethsemane. We occupy the heights overlooking the old city. Paratroop Commander Colonel Motti Gur told his men in a little while we will enter it the ancient city of Jerusalem where for generations we have dreamed of and striven for we will be the first to enter. The Jewish nation is awaiting our victory. Be proud and good luck.

At 9:45 a.m. the Israeli Sherman tanks fired at the Lions Gate smashing the bus that blocked it and blew open the doors. Under raking Jordanian fire the Israelis charged the gate. The paratroopers broke into the Via Dolorosa and Colonel Gur lead a group onto the Temple Mount. ‘There you are in a half track after two days of fighting with shots still filling the air and suddenly you enter this wide-open space that everyone has seen before in pictures,’ wrote Israeli Intelligence Officer Arik Ackmon, ‘and though I’m not religious I don’t think there was a man who wasn’t overwhelmed with emotion. Something special had happened.’ There was a skirmish with Jordanian troops before Gur announced over Israel radio the Temple Mount is in our hands”, hence the name of this docudrama. The docudrama portrays what occurred in the battle for Jerusalem through recreations and interviews with many of the surviving paratroopers who made that assault and liberated Jerusalem.

Bates: This docudrama that Jerry is talking about In Our Hands-The Battle for Jerusalem will be playing in Northwest Florida at the AMC Bayou 15 theatres which is on Bayou Boulevard between 9th Avenue and Davis Highway at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, May 23rd and it’s one night only.

Bates: Shoshana, speaking about the Six-Day War and specifically the capture of the Old City,  I have three questions which I will ask all at once so that you can answer them however they need to be answered. 1) Why were the Israeli forces originally forbidden from entering the Old City, 2) why did they then decide they would go into the Old City,  and  3),after capturing the Temple Mount why did they give it back?

Bryen: There are three questions that are really one question.  The answer to the big question is remember that Israel didn’t think it was going to win that war and they didn’t think the Jordanians were going to enter the war. The Israelis were telling the Jordanians from the beginning don’t do this, don’t get involved, stay home.  The Jordanians for their own reasons began shelling Western Jerusalem from Eastern Jerusalem.  But before that, if you  remember  May of 1967 the Israelis believed they were going to lose. Twenty-five years after the Holocaust they believed this could be it for the remaining Jews. Rabbis were talking about mass graves.  So the reason they didn’t want to go into the Old City was they hadn’t planned on it.  Plus,  they were afraid that it was booby-trapped and that there would be greater destruction of holy places. And number three they just didn’t think about it.

Now, by the time they got to it was clear, they had destroyed the Egyptian Air Force, they were rolling in the Sinai, they were rolling on the Golan, they were going to roll in Jerusalem so they did it. They found it was not booby-trapped. The Arabs surrendered the city with not very much destruction.

To your third question. They didn’t give it back.  What they said was,  “The mosque on the top must be ruled by Arabs, by Muslims; it is not our space. Unlike the Muslims who in ’48 and ‘49 took all the Jewish spaces and they destroyed them. Forty-seven synagogues they destroyed, not to mention the Mount of Olive Cemetery. When it was the Jewish turn they said,  “No not us. We are not going to destroy it and we are not going to rule it.”  They went to the Waqf, the Muslim o, religious authority in the city of Jerusalem, which was under the control of King Hussein of Jordan, who is the guardian of the mosques of Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem. They made a deal that religious people would take care of religious space. It’s an amazing thought that having returned to the space of the Western Wall they looked on top and they saw someone else’s religious patrimony there and they respected it.

Bates: What they got for that respect was continued violence and even the Temple Mount you say that they didn’t give it back and I suppose arguably you are right. On the other hand, it’s being managed by this Waqf and Israeli police control the entry points to the Temple Mount. Muslims, with rare exceptions when violence is feared, can enter any time they want and can pray. Non-Muslims are limited to very specific entry times from very specific entry points and are prohibited from overtly praying on the Temple Mount.

Bryen: Well that’s a quirk. Because Israel’s Rabbinate did not want people praying on the Temple Mount and the Israeli Government took that as their signal – which was the answer the government wanted; a rare case of the Rabbinate making the government’s life easier rather than harder.  The Rabbis were concerned that people could find themselves praying in the space that was originally the Holy of Holies and you can’t and that’s a religious issue. The Israeli government said the Rabbis don’t want it, the Arabs do want it so we don’t want it. I don’t know what would have happened if the Rabbis had said the opposite. I don’t know where it would have gone.

Gordon: Shoshana one of the allied problems has been that the Waqf has been the perpetrator of excavating what is the archeological Jewish provenance under the Dome of the Rock and much of that has been scattered in the debris in the City of David scree pile. That doesn’t indicate that in respect of what the Israelis did to grant control over the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque that it respects Jewish heritage there.

Bryen: The Waqf does not respect Jewish heritage and I would suggest that the Israeli government made a mistake in allowing them to do excavation. It wasn’t necessary. You must remember there is a difference between what happened in the days shortly after the Six-Day War when first there was certain euphoria because they had not expected to survive.  In those first days after the Six-Day War the Arabs of Jerusalem were not threatening people. They surrendered the city rather than have it be blown up. They worked with the Israelis. They understood that they were occupied.  Things that happened immediately thereafter were in the context of decent relations. Over time those relations didn’t stand up for exactly the reason you said. The Waqf and the Arabs do not fundamentally respect the Israeli position vis-a-vis Jerusalem at all and the Temple Mount specifically. They’re not quite as nice as they used to be.  They continue to permit the Arabs to have a great deal of leeway on the Temple Mount and perhaps they shouldn’t.

Bates: I agree with that. I was in Israel in 2014 and I had a fair amount of difficulty getting to the Temple Mount. Ultimately we did get in and had a private tour from one of the Imams which is somewhat interesting itself.  I was shocked by how exclusive it is against non-Muslims. Non-Muslims don’t have decent access to the Temple Mount.  I just find that to be incredibly unjust. If there is any point of validity to the charge of apartheid it is the Temple Mount where the Muslims have it and the infidels don’t.

Bryen: Absolutely, but the Muslims will tell you don’t need to go to the Temple Mount because you are not a Muslim.  So what difference should it make to you if you don’t have free access?

Gordon: That means that infidels or Kufr as people call them in Islam.

Bryen: Yes.

Gordon: Or Dhimmi, subjugated people under Sharia law.

Bryen: And not entitled to the same rights and privileges as Muslims.

Gordon: That’s correct.

Bryen: Which is to say Muslims can go there when they want but you don’t need to and so you can’t.

Bates: If  I may editorialize for just a moment Shoshana and Jerry, Jerusalem isn’t really a holy place for Muslims anyway. They just want it so the Jews can’t have it and their claim is that Jerusalem is the third holiest site in Islam behind Mecca and Medina. This is based on the false story that the prophet Mohammed rode the winged horse from Mecca to Jerusalem on his night journey.  They claimed that he ascended into heaven from the location of what is now the Al-Aqsa Mosque accompanied by the angel Gabriel.  The problem with that nonsensical story is obvious to those who study history and just don’t take at face value what they are told. The night journey to Jerusalem referred to in the Hadith as the farthest mosque supposedly took place in 621. However, there was no mosque in Jerusalem in 621. It was Umar bin al-Khattab who built the first mosque in Jerusalem during the Rashidun Caliphate which didn’t begin until 632  following  the death of Mohammed.  Jerusalem wasn’t conquered by Muslims until 637! The likely date for construction of the first mosque in Jerusalem was 637.  That is sixteen years after Mohammed’s night journey..  If I may be so bold as to say it, Islam’s claim to Jerusalem is a myth and not based on fact!

Bryen: There you go making sense because you are not supposed to be reading the dates of conquest and things like that. You are supposed to take it on face that this is what they say it is. It is a problem, I mean I’m laughing a little bit but I’m not laughing. They will tell you that the calendar doesn’t matter. What matters is faith and we believe this and if we believe it then you must treat it as if it’s true. Here you get to something that you will see in the political sphere as well.

It is not just religion; what they call their “narrative.” That means the history that they make up. Saeb Erekat once said that he was a Canaanite and someone said if you are a Canaanite you can’t be an Arab, because Arabs and Canaanites were different people.  He said, “ Don’t tell me what my narrative is.” In other words, don’t tell me what my truth is. My truth is whatever I make it and so you are exactly right. If the dates of construction don’t match the reality of history and we care about that you’re supposed to say, “Oh well too bad, it doesn’t. It’s the narrative.”

You find a lot in the political sphere.  This is what the Palestinian text books do. They tell you things that are not true.  They say, “That is our narrative, that is what we teach our children because that is what we want them to understand.”

Bates: My motto is “truth above all” and whichever side that truth falls on that’s where I want to be.  That’s why it bothers me so much when people tell and subsequently believe lies.

Gordon: Shoshana, Charismatic, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser triggered the crisis that lead to his and the so-called United Arab Republics defeat in the 1967 War. What were his objectives, how did he treat the Palestinians and why does that resonate today given the Iranian threats to Israel’s existence?

Bryen: Nasser was not interested in Palestine or Palestinians. Nasser was an Arab nationalist and he had only two goals. First was to be the leader of the Pan Arab Nationalist movement and second to play Russia and the United States against one another. Yes, he wanted to destroy Israel because he thought it was important for his nationalist Pan Arab goals.  Occasionally, it was important to mention Palestinians, but the goals were always something else. The goals were always Pan Arab. How does it relate to Iran today? Iran is not Pan Arab obviously, however it is Pan Islamic and Pan Islam is a bigger and more expansive problem than Pan Arabism, but it has the same goal. It is the control of large stretches of territory and people.

Bates: And the re-establishment of an Islamic Caliphate.

Bryen: Nasser was not exactly Caliphate oriented because he was a secular nationalist. Now, the Iranians are looking for the Caliphate. ISIS is looking for the Caliphate. Al Qaeda is looking for the Caliphate.

Gordon: Erdogan is looking to create another Caliphate.

Bryen: Erdogan wants the Ottoman Empire back.

Gordon: Right.

Bates: Shoshana, you recently had the opportunity to interview Michael Oren, former Israeli Ambassador to the United States and the author of an outstanding book titled, Six Days of War – June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East. What are your major takeaways from your interview with Michael Oren?

Bryen: Oren spent a fair amount of time talking about the difference between Pan Arabism and Pan Islamism.  But the biggest point he made was without the Six Day War Israel would not be the country that it is today and he means that in positive ways. The Six Day War made the borders of Israel much more defensible.  It made Jerusalem again the heart and soul not only of the State of Israel but of the Jewish people. The Six Day War brought religious freedom to Jerusalem. It gave the Jews a sense twenty-five years after the Holocaust, that they could compete in this modern world. They could live in this modern world.

What came out of that is the strategic alliance with the United States.  Plus, Israel is in the top tier of countries in terms of scientific and educational development. Other kinds of development include computers, music, agriculture and water technology.  All of that comes from the confidence to be who you are and to know that you can survive in the world. That is my favorite part of the interview which was also his biggest point.

That confidence has made Israel the only country in the modern world that has a birth rate that is above replacement. Israeli women have between three and five babies each and that is secular women. The Arab birth rate in Israel has gone down as Arab-Israeli women have more opportunities for education and professional opportunities, their birth rate has declined.  The birth rate for Orthodox Jewish women has declined for the same reason. More education, more opportunities in the secular world. The birth rate for secular Israeli women is going up and it is over three babies per woman which is more than replacement. It is the highest number in the developed world.  That is from optimism.

According to Ambassador Oren the Six Day War was itself a terrible trial of fire for the Jewish state, but what came out of it is a very positive optimistic and confident Israel which in his view and in mine can figure out how to solve their remaining problems.

Gordon: Shoshana on the back of your InFocus Spring 2017 Quarterly issue is a document you call your final thoughts entitled, “Back to the Future”. What are they?

Bryen: You cannot solve the current problems without going back to the fact that the Arab states have never ever recognized the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty in the Middle East. To solve the problem, they have to do what they failed to do since ’48. If they do that everything else is possible.

Bates: Any closing thoughts, Jerry?

Gordon: For our listeners in Pensacola you ought to come and watch this terrific docudrama called, In Our Hands-The Battle for Jerusalem. It will be shown the AMC Bayou 15 on May 23rd, the eve of Jerusalem Day in Israel at 7 p.m.  It’s the only showing and you ought to take someone with you and go see it.

Bates: Jerry and I will both be there and we hope to see you there as well. So, thank you Jerry Gordon from the New English Review and Shoshana Bryen with the Jewish Policy Center in Washington for joining us as well. Always enjoy these Middle East round table discussions. We thank you for listening today to Your Turn on 1330 WEBY.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. Listen to the 1330am WEBY interview. Download the Jewish Policy Center, inFocus Spring 2017 Quarterly, Six Days and Fifty Years .

ISIS video features American, Canadian, British, Russian, Belgian Muslim Fighters

Today’s moderate Muslim is tomorrow’s jihadi. The Islamic State is calling the ummah (worldwide Muslim community) to jihad according the Islamic texts and teachings.

A vast proportion of ISIS recruits are “far from being uneducated or illiterate,” a World Bank has found in a study of why people join terrorist groups. The report says some of the recruits tend to be even better educated than their average countrymen. It is not surprising. The Caliph himself has a PhD in Islamic theology.

Herein lies further proof that the lie that Islamic apologists and Muslim supremacists advance is propaganda. Here again, reality flies in the face of the bogus narrative of Islamic supremacists and the leftist lapdogs on their payroll, that jihad is caused by illiteracy and poverty. We are clubbed to death with the lie (literally). But it is often just the opposite. Well-educated and affluent, the jihadis shows that the catalyst for jihad is a move towards the faith of Islam. Religiosity is the catalyst.

There’s more, much more, but you get the picture.

It has been shown time and time again — whether it was the Muslim doctors who tried to blow up the Glasgow airport; or the wealthy, educated diplomat’s son who attempted to bomb a plane right out of the sky over Detroit on Christmas day; or the group of 45 Muslim doctors who plotted Islamic terror raids in the US; or the rich, well-educated Osama bin Laden; or the 19 9/11 hijackers. Jihad has nothing to do with wealth or education. It is a religion, a totalitarian and supremacist belief system.

One Muslima who joined the jihad, Aqsa Mahmood, grew up in an affluent neighborhood and attended a prestigious private school. The Time Square bomber was the son of an affluent banker and diplomat.

The jihadist who led the mass beheading of Christians on a beach in Libya was an American Muslim. Thousands of Muslims from Europe, North America, Australia, etc. are flocking to the Middle East to wage jihad. They grew up in the West. They went to good schools and came from affluent homes. Some stay in their own countries and aid and abet the jihad — like the business executive in India who also happened to run the most influential Twitter account followed by the Islamic State. Foreign jihadis, beheaders, rapists and slaughterers in the cause of Islam.

At the risk of repeating myself for the past ten years, this war is ideological. It’s religious and political, because Islam is political. Nationality, race, sex, ethnicity, borders, hair color, shoe size, and shirt color are irrelevant. The common thread is Islam — authentic Islam.

ISIS Video Features American, Canadian, British, Russian, Belgian Fighters Urging Muslims To Carry Out Attacks In West, Shows Landmarks In NYC, DC, Baltimore, Las Vegas

By MEMRI, May 18, 2017:

The following report is now a complimentary offering from MEMRI’s Jihad and Terrorism Threat Monitor (JTTM). For JTTM subscription information, click here.

On May 17, 2017, the media office of the Islamic State (ISIS) in Ninawa province, Iraq released a video titled “We Will Surely Guide Them To Our Ways.” The video featured fighters from the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Russia, and Belgium repeatedly calling on Muslims living in the West to carry out attacks there. The video features footage and still images of U.S. cities, landmarks and institutions, including Times Square, Johns Hopkins University (Baltimore), Washington D.C., and Las Vegas, as well as financial institutions like Bank of America and PNC Bank. Also in the video, the fighters commended the perpetrators of attacks carried out in the West, including Omar Mateen and Anis Amri, of the Orlando night club shooting and the Berlin Christmas market attacks, respectively.

In addition, the video, which was posted on multiple ISIS-affiliated Telegram channels and Twitter accounts as well as on the ISIS-affiliated online jihadi forum Shumoukh Al-Islam, highlighted ISIS’s weapons manufacturing capabilities, and revealed several technological developments in that regard, including an explosive-laden drone and a high-yield RPG.

Capturemtv60271.jpg

Two of the fighters featured in the video, Abu Maliha Al-Kanadi (“the Canadian”) and Abu Zakaria Al-Britani, carried out martyrdom operations against Iraqi military vehicles.

sd6935.jpg
Abu Maliha Al-Kanadi

Before carrying out his martyrdom operation, Al-Kanadi addressed “the brothers who believe in Allah,” saying: “I am too much excited. I don’t know what to say but I am going to meet my master who ordered me to do what I am supposed to do. We all must wake up to fight for the cause of Allah. Without jihad, without jihad, without jihad, there is no Islam.”

sd69351.jpg
Abu Zakaria Al-Britani sitting in his suicide vehicle en route to target

Another fighter, an American named Abu Hamza Al-Amriki, lashed out at the U.S., accusing it of “carrying the banner of the cross in waging war against Muslims,” of supporting Iran in spreading its religion (the Shi’a) in Muslim countries, and of destroying cities and killing Muslim women and children. Addressing “the monotheists” living in the U.S., Al-Amriki urges them to attack non-Muslims there, saying: “Are you incapable of stabbing a Kafir [infidel] with a knife, throwing him off a building, or running him over with a car? Liberate yourself from hellfire by killing a kafir [infidel]… So show resolve and place your trust in Allah and He will pave the way for you.”

sd69352.jpg
Abu Hamza Al-Amriki

Al-Amriki also highlights ISIS’s weapons manufacturing capabilities, introducing an anti-tank rocket launcher that ISIS manufactured from scratch, and mocks the Iraqi soldiers for their inability to distinguish ISIS-made from U.S.-made rocket launchers when encountering them in the field. Pointing to an ISIS-made rocket launcher, Al-Amriki says: “What we have here the rafidah say is projectile launchers are weapons which America provided to the Islamic State. This demonstrates their stupidity, foolishness of the Rafidah. This weapon is a pride of the Islamic State. To Allah belongs all praise.  And this weapon, here, is ghamina [booty], which was taken from the rafidah’s personnel, to whom America gave support and weapons… for the soldiers of the Islamic State [were able] to produce weapons with which they can fight the enemies of Allah, including this anti-tank rocket launcher. It was made and completed from scratch, and to Allah belongs all praise. And this is due to the need for weapons in battle that can destroy the armor of the rafidah and the Americans.” He added that ISIS produces anti-tank rocket launchers and thermobaric launchers, as well as “other types,” whose effect, he said, will be left “for the enemy of Allah to discover for themselves.”

sd69353.jpg
ISIS RPG manufacturing facility

sd69354.jpg
Abu Jihad Al-Rusi

Another fighter featured in the video, a Russian named Abu Jihad, also emphasized ISIS’s weapons manufacturing capabilities, saying that the group produces SPG-9 anti-Russian armored tanks and RPG-7 for U.S Humvees. He addresses Muslims living among the “polytheists” and urges them to “turn their security into terror.”

A fighter from Belgium named Abu Dujanah Al-Bajiki stresses that ISIS has managed to develop an anti-aircraft weapon that can be controlled remotely in order to target American and French aircraft, as well as IEDs delivered to their targets via remote-controlled robots.

sd69355.jpg
Abu Dujanah Al-Baljiki highlighting ISIS’s remote-control anti-aircraft weapon

Abu Dujanah also praises the perpetrators of attacks in Paris and Brussels, and calls upon Muslims to carry out more attacks. Below are excerpts from Abu Dujanah’s message:

“The Iraqi forces, with their American Abrams tanks and their Russian tanks, are attempting to advance, under cover of Crusader air support, on the areas controlled by the mujahideen. One of the coalition members is France, which violently supports them with artillery. Yet Allah has provided the mujahideen with the means to counter this. By the grace of Allah, the mujahideen have acquired many Strela anti-aircraft missiles. They have also developed a remote-controlled anti-aircraft system, in order to target American and French aircraft with precision. They have also developed a remote-controlled bomb carrier, which advances toward its targets, in order to blow them up along with their crews, who are trying to advance on Muslim territory.

“Allah be praised, these weapons were manufactured despite the violence of the battle, and the throttling siege laid by these Crusaders and their minions, who will enter the ground battle, which will be fierce. Just as Allah has provided the mujahideen with these weapons, He has provided the operations that have made these states of disbelief tremble – like the Paris operation on November 13, the operation carried out by our brother Coulibaly, the operation of our brother in Brussels, Abballa Larossi, and the others, may Allah accept them. They have exported the war into the heart of France and Belgium, and have avenged the blood spilled by France and Belgium in Iraq and Syria.”

The video features several other calls for attacks in the West by non-Western suicide bombers. One of them, Abu Youssof Al-Masalawi, addresses Muslims living in the West, saying: “Oh brothers, if you couldn’t manage to come to the land of the Caliphate, the heads of unbelief are in front of you in your countries. I call on you by the name of Allah to have your swords dripping [with the] blood of the infidel before night time. Rest assured that any drop of blood spilled there would ease the pressure on us here.” Another suicide bomber, Abu Omar, addresses “the brothers” who couldn’t make it to the Caliphate and urges them to kill the infidel everywhere, saying that jihad is a religious obligation.

Other technological advancements shown in the video include a remote-controlled airplane packed with explosives, and a newly developed high-yield explosive that ISIS is seen using in one suicide mission.

sd69356.jpg
An Explosive-laden remote-controlled drone used by ISIS

The video ends with scenes pf Western cities and institutions, including New York, Las Vegas, Baltimore, and Washington D.C., and Bank of America and PNC bank, coupled with segments from a previously released speech by ISIS spokesman Abu Al-Hassan Al-Muhajir in which he urged “truthful” Muslims in the U.S., Russia, and Europe to carry out attacks against Western interests using large double-wheeled load-bearing trucks to target festivals, parades, outdoor markets, and rallies.

sd69357.jpg
The Bellagio Hotel in Las Vegas

sd69358.jpg
Times Square

sd693510.jpg
Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore

sd693513.jpg
Bank of America building in Washington, DC

sd693514.jpg
PNC Bank on Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 

RELATED ARTICLE: Suspect tells police he killed Tampa Palms roommates for disrespecting his Muslim faith | Tampa Bay Times

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Geller Report.

Eritreans top list of Muslim ‘refugees’ entering the U.S.

But, are they really persecuted refugees or are they economic migrants from yet another African country whose government is a mess?

Somali and Eritrean migrants on the run as they try to escape from a police station in Pordenone, Italy while being round up for identification.

And thus the fundamental question for us, as always, is: So why are they our problem?

I did my usual end-of-the-week look at Wrapsnet just now. If you are following my updates in the right hand side bar here at RRW, note that as of today we have admitted 44,888 refugees this fiscal year (the FY ends on September 30th).

Checking the numbers this week I was interested to see that only a little over a quarter of the 813 admitted since last Friday are Muslims.  The Syrian numbers are way down (18 of the 22 admitted this week are Muslims).  We did admit another 57 Somalis, but of the 49 Iraqis admitted, the vast majority (38) are Yezidis. There were zero Iraqi Christians admitted this past week.

I was also interested to see that our Burmese Muslim numbers are growing with 35 admitted this past week (from 5/12-5/19), but of most interest to me was the large number of Muslims admitted during the week from Eritrea (68!).

I have to admit, I’ve never really paid any attention to the flow of Eritreans to the US.  We know they are one of the larger groups flooding in to Europe mostly passing through Hillary’s failed state of Libya, but apparently our US State Department is scooping up a fair number of them as well.

They have an African “authoritarian government,” but why is that our problem? 

Eritrea and Ethiopia have been on-again, off-again at war forever.  Why is that our problem?

One of the ‘human rights’ complaints about Eritrea is its mandatory conscription to military service, so,again, why is that our problem?

Felix Horne

Indeed, many question whether the Eritreans are legitimate “refugees” or are they “economic migrants.”

“In refugee law, it can be tricky to draw the line between an economic migrant and someone who is fleeing persecution,” says Felix Horne, a researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Eritrea is the best example of that…”

Admissions of Eritreans are on the rise in the US

I explored Wrapsnet a bit to see what we have  been doing for about the last ten or so fiscal years with Eritreans and sure enough, the numbers we admit are on the rise.

In FY2008 we admitted only 251.  That number jumped to 1,571 in Obama’s first year. In 2016 it was 1,949 and, in the first seven and a half months of this fiscal year, the number stands at 1,307.

In the past week, ending this morning, we admitted 90 Eritreans and 68 of those are Muslims. That was the highest ethnic group of Muslims in the week. Are they getting “extreme vetting?”

If we continue to admit 90 a week*** for the remaining  weeks of the fiscal year, the Trump Administration could reach 3,000 by September 30th (well above any year during the Obama Administration).

Since FY2007 we admitted 16,897 Eritreans to the US.

There is a lot of useful information in the article I linked above and here from the Council on Foreign Relations if you want to learn more about the Eritrean tide spreading to Europe and America.  One of the points that jumped out at me is one we discussed, here, recently.

Note that US dollars sent out of the US economy prop up Eritrea’s economy:

Eritreans in the diaspora also contribute to Eritrea’s economic survival by sending their families remittances, which provide the country with foreign reserves and keep families afloat.

So, as Syrian and Somali refugee numbers decline slightly, we are seeing an increase in Burmese Rohingya Muslims to the US as well as the Eritreans we have featured in this post.

*** Here is the breakdown of the Eritrean refugee admissions for the week of May 12-May 19, 2017 from Wrapsnet:

Russia Special Counsel Mueller Worked with Radical Islamic Groups

Now that Robert Mueller has been appointed special counsel to investigate if Russia influenced the 2016 presidential election it’s worth reiterating his misguided handiwork and collaboration with radical Islamic organizations as FBI director. Judicial Watch exclusively obtained droves of records back in 2013 documenting how, under Mueller’s leadership, the FBI purged all anti-terrorism training material deemed “offensive” to Muslims after secret meetings between Islamic organizations and the FBI chief. Judicial Watch had to sue to get the records and published an in-depth report on the scandal in 2013 and a lengthier, updated follow-up in 2015.

As FBI director, Mueller bent over backwards to please radical Islamic groups and caved into their demands. The agency eliminated the valuable anti-terrorism training material and curricula after Mueller met with various Islamic organizations, including those with documented ties too terrorism. Among them were two organizations— Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)—named by the U.S. government as unindicted co-conspirators in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation terrorist financing case. CAIR is a terrorist front group with extensive links to foreign and domestic Islamists. It was founded in 1994 by three Middle Eastern extremists (Omar Ahmad, Nihad Awad and Rafeeq Jaber) who ran the American propaganda wing of Hamas, known then as the Islamic Association for Palestine.

The records obtained as part of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit show that Mueller, who served 12 years as FBI chief, met with the Islamic organizations on February 8, 2012 to hear their demands. Shortly later the director assured the Muslim groups that he had ordered the removal of presentations and curricula on Islam from FBI offices nationwide. The purge was part of a broader Islamist operation designed to influence the opinions and actions of persons, institutions, governments and the public at-large. The records obtained by Judicial Watch also show similar incidents of Islamic influence operations at the Departments of Justice and State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Obama White House.

Here are some of the reasons provided by Mueller’s FBI for getting rid of “offensive” training documents: “Article is highly inflammatory and inaccurately argues the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization.” It’s crucial to note that Mueller himself had previously described the Muslim Brotherhood as a group that supports terrorism in the U.S. and overseas when his agency provided this ludicrous explanation. Here’s more training material that offended the terrorist groups, according to the FBI files provided to Judicial Watch: An article claiming Al Qaeda is “clearly linked” to the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing; The Qur’an is not the teachings of the Prophet, but the revealed word of God; Sweeping generality of ‘Those who fit the terrorist profile best (for the present at least) are young male immigrants of Middle Eastern appearance;’ conflating Islamic Militancy with terrorism. The list goes on and on.

Mueller’s actions have had a widespread effect because many local law enforcement agencies followed the FBI’s lead in allowing Islamic groups like CAIR to dictate what anti-terrorism material could be used to train officers. Among them are police departments in three Illinois cities— Lombard, Elmhurst and Highland Park—as well as the New York Police Department (NYPD). In the case of the Lombard Police Department, CAIR asserted that the instructor of a training course called “Islamic Awareness as a Counter-Terrorist Strategy” was anti-Muslim though there was no evidence to support it. Like the FBI, Lombard officials got rid of the “offensive” course. The NYPD purged a highly-acclaimed report that’s proven to be a critical tool in terrorism investigations after three New York Muslims, two mosques and an Islamic nonprofit filed a lawsuit.

Considering Mueller’s role in much of this, it makes him a bizarre choice to lead the heated Russia investigation. The goal, apparently, is to determine of Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election and if President Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russian officials. In the Justice Department announcement, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein describes Mueller as person who qualifies to lead the probe because he exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command. “Special Counsel Mueller will have all appropriate resources to conduct a thorough and complete investigation, and I am confident that he will follow the facts, apply the law and reach a just result,” according to Rosenstein.

Mark Steyn on the poisoning of Robert Spencer

“The social-justice crowd are moving toward the same point as the Charlie Hebdo killers, and for the same reason: They’re too stupid to argue.”

Yes.

Here is an excellent take on what happened to me in Iceland and its larger implications.

Mark Steyn

“The Poisoning of Robert Spencer,” by Mark Steyn, May 18, 2017:

For years now I’ve said that anti-free-speech leftists and the men who slaughtered the staff of Charlie Hebdo, shot up Lars Vilks’ event in Copenhagen, etc, are merely different points on the same continuum: They’re both in the shut-up business: both groups find it quicker and easier and more satisfying to silence you than to debate you.

There were those who found the comparison offensive – to whom I would on good-humored days grant that the two points on the same continuum were nevertheless some distance apart.

Well, they got considerably closer in Reykjavik last week.

Robert Spencer, the author of several bestselling books on Islam, a brave crusader against the dopier multiculti illusions and the proprietor of the indispensable Jihad Watch, gave a speech at the Grand Hotel, went to unwind at dinner afterwards, and was poisoned by a social-justice warrior. Here’s Robert’s account of what happened

That’s quite a sophisticated operation – a two-man team, the first a fake fan, the second a post-kiss-of-death gloater.

Before the banking crash of ’08, Iceland was flush, and celebs like Elton John were flown in for gala bashes. But it’s all quietened down a bit since then, so the Spencer event was a big deal. He drew an audience of 500 – which in a town of 125,000 and a nation of 300,000 is pretty impressive. There was lots of coverage of his visit – none of which actually quoted him or excerpted his speech or interviewed those who were interested in hearing what he had to say. Instead the media preferred to cover the few dozen protestors of his trip. In all the column inches devoted to Robert Spencer, no journalist thought to seek a comment from Robert Spencer. There are two sides to every story – except this guy’s story: he doesn’t deserve a side.

This kind of dehumanization sends a message – and the man who poisoned Robert got it loud and clear:

Those who paint the targets, and those who shoot at them, think they’re doing something great. Not only does the Left fill those whom it brainwashes with hate, but it does so while portraying its enemies as the hatemongers, such that violent Leftists such as the young man who drugged me feel righteous as they victimize and brutalize for the crime of disagreement.

I have no doubt whatsoever that whoever poisoned me in Iceland went away feeling happy over what he had done. If he told anyone what he did, I’m sure he was hailed as a hero. I’m also aware that many who read this will crow and exult in knowing that someone who hates my opposition to jihad terror and Sharia oppression made me seriously ill. This is how degenerate and evil the Left has become.

I don’t know how I’d stand up to a cocktail of Ritalin and Ecstasy. I do know there’s at least one person in my modest entourage it would kill. And I have no doubt that had the fellow in the restaurant switched on the radio the following morning and heard that Robert Spencer had died in hospital overnight he would have celebrated.

Like the guns at Singapore, the social-justice mob’s fingers are pointing in the wrong direction: They accuse their opponents endlessly of “otherization”; yet they are the ones who so deny the humanity of “the other” that it seems cool and heroic to attempt to kill a chap who gave a speech you object to – even though you never heard the speech, and, even if you had, are incapable of articulating what exactly in it you take issue with.

Douglas Murray and I noted after the tenth anniversary of the Mohammed cartoons how strangely controversial the post-event dinner has become. In Copenhagen, the restaurant panicked at the sight of the PET – the Danish security-service agents – and canceled our booking. As Douglas wrote:

Ten years ago, you could publish depictions of Mohammed in a Danish newspaper. Ten years later, it is hard for anyone who has been connected with such an act to find a restaurant in Copenhagen that will serve them dinner.

For those in Robert Spencer’s line of work, these events are undeniably stressful. There are security precautions, of course, but you never know, from the Vilks event in Copenhagen to Robert’s in Garland, Texas, whether some jihadist will succeed in breaking through. There’s a sense of relief when you exit the stage and it’s all gone off without incident. You’re looking forward to a drink and a bite to eat in convivial company. And you’re on your post-performance high, so you’re generally bonhomous when people approach professing to be fans and seeking a selfie or an autograph. And there’s three or four and they’re all around you, and you put your drink down on the table – as Douglas and I did again and again in the bar we wound up in late that night. And the fans move on, and you pick up your glass without a thought…

Robert Spencer will never do that again.

The social-justice crowd are moving toward the same point as the Charlie Hebdo killers, and for the same reason: They’re too stupid to argue. For the Islamic imperialists, debate is a largely alien concept. For the left, it’s simply too much effort. As I said here many years ago, the great appeal of multiculturalism is that it absolves you from having to know anything about other cultures: If they’re all equally valid, what’s the point? Slap on the CO-EXIST bumper sticker and off you tootle. No need to worry whether the “C” might have a bit of a problem with some of the other letters, and that indeed, if not for the “C”, you wouldn’t need a bumper-sticker admonition to CO-EXIST in the first place. But, after two generations of social engineering, of the substitution of attitudes for education, it would require too much effort to equip yourself to argue against the difficult questions a man such as Robert Spencer raises. It’s literally easier to kill him.

Not yet in the blood-lusting exultant scimitar-raising style of the decapitators of French priests. But just through whatever you’ve got in your stash that might ensure he’ll be flying out of Reykjavik by the handles. So for the moment there is still a continuum. But it’s narrowing, and will narrow still.

Get well soon, Robert.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Patriarch Gregory III Laham, who called Melkite Catholic Church “Church of Islam,” resigns under pressure

Germany: Court rules it acceptable for politician to be called “Nazi slut” on TV for opposing Muslim migrant influx

Iran’s Election Farce: President Trump must close Iran’s illegal election sites

Iranian voters go to the polls on Friday to select a new president from a list of the regime faithful chosen for them by the Supreme Leader and his aptly-named Guardians Council.

Many opposition groups, both inside Iran and in exile, have called for a boycott on these sham elections, which are a masquerade of democracy.

Regime supporters whined when the leftist government of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau shut down polling stations set up by the Islamic State of Iran’s embassy in Toronto, arguing that Western governments should want more voting by Iranians, not less.

But these elections are as free as those held by Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union in the 1930s, or by Saddam Hussein in Iraq in the 1980s. Stalin’s famous dictum – it’s not the people who vote who count, it’s the people who count the votes – is nowhere more true today than in Islamic Iran.

And while incumbent president Hassan Rouhani is trying to position himself as an election-eve convert to moderate policies, his supporters cannot name a single political prisoner who owes his or her freedom to Rouhani’s intervention, or to a single political execution Rouhani helped to block.

But the elections are important to Ayatollah Khamenei. The so-called “Supreme Leader” of the Islamist Iran has repeatedly called on citizens to vote on Friday, reasoning that a high turnout will “send a message” to regime foes in Israel and the United States.

It’s an outrage that U.S. taxpayers are paying to spread the Ayatollah’s anti-U.S. propaganda, but it’s true. That and many similar “news” stories touting the virtues of Iran’s [s]elections have been broadcast by the Persian service of VOA and Radio Farda, run by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

Put simply, a vote on Friday is not a vote for moderation or freedom, or even the better of bad choices: it is a vote of support for the Islamic terror regime in Tehran.

As the pro-bono president of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, I have joined forces with the Islamic State of Iran Crime Research Center and hundreds of others in petitioning the White House to shut down the 56 illegal polling places the Iranian regime authorities say they want to set up across the United States on Friday.

Among them are unknown locations in Buffalo, New York, Detroit, Michican, and Seattle, Washington, where the Islamic regime’s embassy plans to bus in would-be voters from across the border in Canada. (I can hear the questions from our Customs and Border Control agents: and you want to come to the United States to do what?)

We expect the regime to update its dedicated website on the elections with actual addresses at the last minute, as has been their practice in previous years. Their goal in this hide and seek is to avoid federal prosecution, and to prevent protest by regime opponents.

There are other reasons why freedom-loving Iranians and ordinary Americans should join us in calling on the Trump administration to shut down these election sites: they violate a whole gamut of U.S. laws.

As part of the 1981 Algiers Accord that ended the 444-day ordeal of U.S. diplomats held hostage by Tehran, the Iranian regime is allowed to maintain two diplomatic facilities in the United States: a Permanent Mission to the United Nations in New York, and an Interests section in Washington, DC, currently under the protection of the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

But the accord also forbids those diplomats from traveling beyond a 25 mile radius from New York or Washington, DC, without a specific permit from the Department of State.

Iranian regime election law, however, requires that regime officials actually man the polling stations and certify the balloting.  If any Iranian diplomats are caught traveling beyond the 25-mile limit without a permit, they should be immediately jailed and ultimately declared Persona Non-Grata.

Beyond that, U.S. sanctions under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act and other authorities prohibit U.S. citizens from conducting business or performing services for the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Treasury Department can freeze the assets of violators under a simple order that is not subject to judicial review.

That means that any U.S. university, hotel, business, or private person entering into a contractual relationship to provide facilities to be used as polling places for the Iranian “election” on Friday does so at their peril. They have far more to lose than just the thirty pieces of silver they took as rent from the regime.

Pro-Tehran lobbyists continue to populate the swamps in Washington, DC.

One such group, calling itself the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian-Americans (PAAIA), has been trying to organize opposition to the Trump Executive Orders on immigration, and filed a lawsuit in federal court in Washington, DC, seeking to stay their implementation.

PAAIA leaders are coming to Washington, DC, this coming Monday for meetings with Speaker Paul Ryan and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

Others, such as the National Iranian American Council, wildly successful under the Obama administration, have seen their influence shrivel to the size of one peanut under Trump.

Like millions of ordinary Americans who finally woke up and voted last November because they saw the real possibility that the country they grew up in would be destroyed, pro-freedom Iranian-Americans generally abhor politics. They rarely act in a well-organized fashion. Even protests against Ahmadinejad’s visits to the United Nations in New York rarely attracted more than a few thousand demonstrators, and most of those were paid and bused in by the Islamist Marxist Mujahedin-e Khalq, as I revealed in these pages over a decade ago.

That is why the grass roots support from Iranian-Americans to shut down these sham elections is so important.

Ayatollah Khomeini famously said during the 1979-1981 hostage crisis, “America can do nothing.”

By that he meant, we can spit in their face, we can stomp on their flag and defy them on their own territory, and they won’t dare to oppose us.

The Islamic state of Iran’s current leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, loves to repeat Khomeini’s slogan. This is a terrific opportunity not just to prove the ayatollahs wrong, but to show them that America remains a beacon of freedom that ultimately will shine brighter than their dark regime inside Iran itself.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

The backdoor law used to bring illegals to America

Illegal aliens under the age of 21-years old are migrating to America legally. They are coming under the provisions of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act – Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) program.  SIJS has been used to flood border states, like California, with illegal migrants from the “violence-prone Northern Triangle countries of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.”

In a column titled A ‘Generous’ Pathway to Citizenship, Foster Care Bret Schafer reports:

For the past fifteen years, Casa Libre has served as a refuge for unaccompanied minors who arrive in Southern California from the violence-prone Northern Triangle countries of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.

Many of those children have been granted lawful permanent residence in the United States through a form of relief known as Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS), which provides green cards to unauthorized refugee children who cannot be returned to one or both parents due to abuse, neglect or abandonment. The program has been widely used by child welfare agencies and advocates as a way to support the needs of unaccompanied minors living in the U.S. 

Enacted in 1990, SIJS was originally created by Congress to protect vulnerable, non-citizen homeless and foster children from deportation and exploitation. But in 2008, President Bush signed the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which expanded the definition of SIJS to include minors under the age of 21 who have been declared a dependent of a juvenile court, who cannot be reunified with one or both parents due to abuse, neglect or a similar basis, and for whom a return to their country of origin is determined to be against their best interests.

“It’s the most generous form of relief I know of in the world,” said Lenni Benson, a professor of law at the New York Law School and the director of the Safe Passage Project, a non-profit that provides pro-bono legal representation to unaccompanied immigrant children. [Emphasis added]

Read more…

There is growing concern that ISIS is using fake passports to gain entry into the United States or crossing the southern border illegally. We also know that ISIS has recruited, trained and deployed an estimated half million children to fight the infidels.

According to Schafer, “USCIS received 19,475 petitions, more than double the annual quota. At the end of 2016, there were more SIJS applications awaiting decisions (8,533) than there were total applications submitted (6,840) between 2010-2012.”

Are some of these “children” coming to America under the Special Immigrant Juvenile Status program terrorists and/or drug cartel gang members?

RELATED ARTICLES: 

HALF A MILLION children recruited by ISIS

WARNING GRAPHIC VIDEO: ISIS Child Executioners

VIDEO: Five Children of the Islamic State Execute Kurdish Prisoners

List of refugees receiving assistance in Florida in FY2016 by county

RELATED VIDEO: Grooming Children for Jihad — The Islamic State

Ireland not taking its required EU quota of Muslim migrants

Calais migrant camp.

Calais migrant camp.

But they promised to take 200 migrants from the “French migrant camp in Calais.”  Twenty-one have arrived already!

Don’t you love it the way the media makes it sound like the camp at Calais was just one more sanctioned migrant camp.  It was not! It was a location in France across the English Channel from the UK where illegal aliens built a make-shift camp as they attempted to break in to the UK.

Lesson here is make demands long enough and you will be ‘welcomed’ to the UK, in this case Ireland!

Invasion of Europe news….

From RTE News (Irish public radio):

Ireland is being urged to resolve security issues with Italy to allow for the arrival of more migrants.  [Good for them they are at least using the word ‘migrants’ and not automatically calling them ‘refugees!’—ed]

The Department of Justice has previously said that due to issues with the Italian authorities surrounding the security assessment of migrants, relocations from Italy have yet to commence for many countries, including Ireland.

But today the European Commission called on the Government to find ways to overcome these hurdles.

Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos said “I call on Ireland and Estonia to find mutually acceptable working arrangements with Italy on security interviews in the way that for example The Netherlands, France and Greece have worked out successfully.”

[….]

The latest figures from the Department of Justice show that 21 unaccompanied minors, previously resident in the French migrant camp in Calais, have arrived in Ireland and are in the care of the child and family agency Tusla.

The Government has committed to taking up to 200 unaccompanied minors who were previously resident in Calais.

[….]

Two European Council decisions adopted in September 2015 resulted in member states committing to relocate 160,000 asylum-seekers from Italy and Greece by September 2017, but as of last Thursday only 18,418 had been moved.

Under the programme, the Government pledged to accept 4,000 people.

All of my ‘Invasion of Europe’ news is archived here.  My Ireland archive is here.

ENDNOTE: I didn’t get around to posting the map below and story last week. The point of it is that Poland doesn’t take refugees and therefore has zero Islamic terrorist incidents (coincidence?). Maybe someone in Ireland should see it! Or, maybe they have already and thus the foot dragging.

Dots represent terrorist attacks across Europe. NOTE: There are no dots in Poland.

Dots represent terrorist attacks across Europe. NOTE: There are no dots in Poland.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Poland standing firm: Will not take refugee “quota” they were previously assigned

Hijrah documentary, get it!

Temporary Ebola ‘refugees’ to be sent back to Africa

RELATED VIDEO: Hijrah The Documentary Trailer

Muslims littering leads to discovery of their weapons arsenal and bomb-making equipment

“According to police, a man walked by a parked car in north Minneapolis about 5 p.m. Thursday and confronted the people inside after they threw food wrappers on the ground. They ignored him until he paused to get the car license number. The men then got out of the car and indicated they had guns…Inside, the officers found a hand grenade, handgun, assault rifles and magazines and a large quantity of ammunition, the complaint said. They also found cellphones, computers and electronics equipment, including drone parts. Bomb squad personnel called to the scene noted that the large amount of ammunition and electronic devices could be used for bomb-making…”

Litter: more harmful than you realize.

“Routine arrest leads Minneapolis police to arsenal,” Star Tribune, May 15, 2017 (thanks to Undaunted):

Minneapolis police uncovered an arsenal of guns and bomb-making devices during a routine arrest last week.

According to police, a man walked by a parked car in north Minneapolis about 5 p.m. Thursday and confronted the people inside after they threw food wrappers on the ground. They ignored him until he paused to get the car license number. The men then got out of the car and indicated they had guns, according to a criminal complaint filed Monday.

The man flagged down officers, the complaint says, but the men from inside car continued to yell at him and resisted the officers’ attempts to control the situation. The men were insistent they needed to be near the car because a drone was coming to deliver a package, the complaint said. Because of the suspicious circumstances and fear for the man’s safety, the men were placed in the squad while officers searched their car.

Inside, the officers found a hand grenade, handgun, assault rifles and magazines and a large quantity of ammunition, the complaint said. They also found cellphones, computers and electronics equipment, including drone parts.

Bomb squad personnel called to the scene noted that the large amount of ammunition and electronic devices could be used for bomb-making, the complaint said.

Abdullah N. Alrifahe, 27, of Minneapolis, was charged with a gross misdemeanor for carrying a pistol in public without a permit. In December, he was convicted of the same offense….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Imam in Canada defends imam in Denmark who called for killing of Jews

Italian court rules that migrants must conform to values of their new country

U.S. form used to screen migrants doesn’t ask about ties to al-Qaeda or ISIS

“Form N-400 asks various questions, including whether the applicant supports the Constitution or if they’ve ever been members of the Communist or World War II-era German Nazi parties, which are included by law. It also asks if the immigrant is in any way associated with any terrorist organizations but doesn’t list specific groups’ names, such as the Islamic State or al Qaida. ‘On both a symbolic and practical basis, this demonstrates a significant failure by the U.S. government,’ Sauter told TheDCNF. ‘If the government thinks it’s important to use these forms to ask people if they belong to specific hostile groups, why not include the groups that are trying to destroy us today, instead of ones that we were worried about decades ago?’”

Good question. Much draining of the swamp is needed, but it is proceeding very slowly, if at all.

“Fed Form Doesn’t Ask Immigrants’ About Terrorism Ties, Illegal Voting,” by Ethan Barton, Daily Caller, May 12, 2017:

Federal officials don’t compile crucial data, such as what terrorist organizations applicants are affiliated with or if they’ve ever illegally voted in an American election, on the form used to vet immigrants seeking U.S. citizenship, The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group has learned.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) doesn’t collect any statistics on how applicants answer questions on Form N-400, which is used to screen immigrants, according to the agency.

“We have completed our search and no records responsive to your request were located,” USCIS wrote in response to a Freedom of Information Act request submitted by Mark Sauter, a co-author of a homeland security textbook and former investigative journalist.

“This data is critical, it should be aggregated, it should be analyzed,” Sauter told TheDCNF. “If the U.S. government isn’t doing the most basic form of data collection and data mining, then what the heck is going on? In my estimate, every day they fail to collect data from the N-400 is a day the federal government is not protecting us.”

The data could be used for a variety of purposes, such as analyzing how immigrants from certain countries or regions answer questions, according to Sauter.

It could also be used to show how many applicants were rejected – or admitted – from U.S. citizenship after answering disqualifying questions.

“Having those questions and the results on that statistic would confirm that U.S. law is being adhered to in the naturalization process,” Heritage Foundation homeland security expert David Inserra told TheDCNF. “If they’re not reporting that data than you can’t query it.”

He added that info could be used to confirm immigrants’ applications for citizenship are rejected for providing disqualifying answers, such as having ties to terrorist groups.

Form N-400 asks various questions, including whether the applicant supports the Constitution or if they’ve ever been members of the Communist or World War II-era German Nazi parties, which are included by law. It also asks if the immigrant is in any way associated with any terrorist organizations but doesn’t list specific groups’ names, such as the Islamic State or al Qaida.

“On both a symbolic and practical basis, this demonstrates a significant failure by the U.S. government,” Sauter told TheDCNF. “If the government thinks it’s important to use these forms to ask people if they belong to specific hostile groups, why not include the groups that are trying to destroy us today, instead of ones that we were worried about decades ago?”

Immigrants seeking naturalization also face an interview where USCIS officials try determining if applicants are affiliated with specific terrorist groups, according to Inserra.

“In both cases, you are responding to the U.S. government, and everything you say can be used against you and can be used later,” Inserra told TheDCNF. “The lying to an immigration officer can be grounds for deportation. If you acquire citizenship as a result of fraud – not just mistakenly, but purposely trying to lie and mislead – then that is grounds for revocation of citizenship.”

A USCIS official confirmed that applicants have answered that they have ties to terrorist organizations on Form N-400. The agency did not respond to a DCNF request asking if it holds data on naturalization applicants’ answers to interview questions.

Regardless, an interview requires relying on bureaucrats asking questions and interpreting answers, whereas “a form is a standardized way of collecting information,” Sauter told TheDCNF.

Inserra, however, noted that interviews allow a dialogue, which can be used to gather more information than from a paper or digital application.

“I don’t particularly see a reason why they need to add terrorism to the form,” he told TheDCNF.

Form N-400 also asks if the immigrant applicant has “ever voted in any federal, state or local election in the United States.”

“There are laws prohibiting [immigrants from voting] and that would be a disqualifying action,” Inserra said. “That would be really interesting to know if they’ve occurred.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Lawyer: Trump Executive Order on Immigration violates First Amendment because honor killings are Islamic

Ohio resettlement agency employee talks about his “clients”

Benjamin Netanyahu: Moving U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem Wouldn’t Harm Peace

Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel, said the United States could move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem without worrying about any dings to the peace process.

U.S. Embassy to Israel

His remarks came after Secretary of State Rex Tillerson hinted that Bibi might not want the embassy moved there, because it could prove an impediment to peace talks.

But Netanyahu doubled down and said his position on the embassy hasn’t changed.

From CNS News:

“‘Israel’s position has been stated many times to the American administration and to the world,’ Netanyahu said in a statement, which his office said was in response to Tillerson’s remarks.

“‘Moving the American embassy to Jerusalem would not harm the peace process,’ the prime minister said. ‘On the contrary, it would advance it by correcting an historical injustice and by shattering the Palestinian fantasy that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel.’

“For months Israeli and regional media outlets have speculated that while Israel has long sought embassies to move from Tel Aviv and surrounding areas to its declared capital, the government worries that should President Trump make good on his campaign promise to move the U.S. mission the benefits could be outweighed by negative consequences.

“The implication has been that Netanyahu – while unable to say so publicly for fear of alienating his support base – hopes that Trump will not keep his pledge.

“Moving the embassy would be deeply controversial since Palestinians contest Israel’s right to the city and want to establish the capital of a future independent state there – a demand Palestinian Authority (P.A.) chairman Mahmoud Abbas reiterated at his March 3 Oval Office meeting with Trump.”

Islamic leaders have warned that recognizing Israel’s claim to the land in so openly a manner would put a stop to peace talks, and trigger anger in the Muslim world.

But Trump made a campaign vow to move the embassy.

Again, from CNS News:

“Moving the embassy to Jerusalem would not only keep an unequivocal campaign promise but would also be in line with U.S. law, which three successive administrations have chosen not to observe over the past 18 years, by passing six-monthly national security waivers.

“President Obama invoked the last such waiver on December 1 last year, so Trump will either have to follow suit on or before June 1, or set in motion steps towards moving the embassy from its current Tel Aviv beachfront location.

“The now-confirmed new ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, is due to take up his duties from Monday. An orthodox Jew and ardent Zionist, Friedman made clear when nominated and since, that he hopes to be working from Jerusalem as soon as possible.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Swedish Senior Citizen Prosecuted for ‘Hate’ for Posting on Facebook She Saw Migrants Defecating in Streets, Setting Cars Ablaze

Germany Confiscating Homes to Use for Muslim Migrants: “A Massive Attack on the Property Rights”

Denmark: Imam calls for murder of Jews

VIDEO: Muslim Migrant beats up helpless disabled Dutch boy on crutches

British Child Rape Victim: ‘Authorities Did Nothing’, Was Told Not to Mention Attackers Were Muslim

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report.

Barack Obama Wrote Becoming Donald Trump Was The American Dream

In a Complex.com article  wrote:

In 1991, Obama, a 29-year-old soon-to-be Harvard Law School grad, wrote a paper with a friend, Robert Fisher, called “Race and Rights Rhetoric.” Obama summed up the average American’s mindset with the following sentence: “I may not be Donald Trump now, but just you wait; if I don’t make it, my children will.”

This quote came to light following the publishing of Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama, a new 1,460-page biography of the former U.S. president by David J. Garrow. That law paper was previously unpublished.

Here’s the full excerpt:

[Americans have] a continuing normative commitment to the ideals of individual freedom and mobility, values that extend far beyond the issue of race in the American mind. The depth of this commitment may be summarily dismissed as the unfounded optimism of the average American—I may not be Donald Trump now, but just you wait; if I don’t make it, my children will.

So why is Barack Obama’s Organizing for Action (OFA) working against President Trump and his agenda? After all, it was Barack Obama who said the elections have consequences.

For example, OFA is against President Trump’s immigration initiatives including securing America’s southern border. OFA’s website states:

WHY WE REJECT “THE WALL”

One of the first actions the new administration took after entering office was to sign an executive order that advanced a plan to waste billions of taxpayer dollars on a massive wall along our southern border.

Now, let’s be clear: This wall is unnecessary, unpopular, and unpaid for. But even more importantly, it would be a physical embodiment of precisely the kind of fear and division that America must reject. It won’t serve to make us more secure, but instead cast a shadow of intolerance.

PROTECTING LAW-ABIDING UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS

For the millions of undocumented immigrants living in America, we have entered a time of great concern and uncertainty. Already, the new administration has signed an order aimed at punishing sanctuary cities, whose policies protect law-abiding undocumented immigrants in order to increase public safety. And as other potential policy changes are discussed, the threat of deportation continues to haunt many of our friends and neighbors.

President Trump made it a key part of his campaign to build a wall along the border with Mexico. OFA’s phrase undocumented immigrants is actually illegal aliens who came to America to take jobs away from legal immigrants and natural born American citizens.

So, why is it necessary to build a wall along America’s southern border?

Perhaps one reason is that there is a war going on in Mexico and it is spilling over our southern border into our towns and cities. But the media does not report how this violence, primarily from drug cartels and gangs like MS13, are causing crime and violence to rise in our major urban areas.

CNN’s Elizabeth Roberts in an article titled Report: Mexico was second deadliest country in 2016 wrote:

It was the second deadliest conflict in the world last year, but it hardly registered in the international headlines.

As Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan dominated the news agenda, Mexico’s drug wars claimed 23,000 lives during 2016 — second only to Syria, where 50,000 people died as a result of the civil war.

In comparison, there were 17,000 conflict deaths in Mexico in 2015 and 15,000 in 2014 according to the IISS.

And Mexico is one of the most dangerous countries in the world to be a journalist.

Here are the top 5 countries for killings in 2016:

  1. Syria                             50,000 [Est.]
  2. Mexico                         23,000
  3. Iraq                               17,000
  4. Afghanistan                16,000
  5. Yemen                          7,000

Note that four of these “dangerous countries” are on President Trump’s travel ban, which several judges have stopped. OFA is also against the travel ban, even though it was former President Obama who declared the countries on the ban as harboring terrorism.

OFA is anti-Trump, the same Trump that Obama dreamed of becoming. Can you say ironic?

RELATED ARTICLES:

As a Harvard Law Student, Barack Obama Said Becoming Donald Trump Was The American Dream | Complex

Portland Bar Offers ‘Free Whiskey for Life’ As Reward For Punching Steve Bannon – Big League Politics

Documents Tie Berkeley Riot Organizers to North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)

President Trump, don’t give in to Turkey’s dangerous Iran-tied demands

Turkey has been on a steady glide path to dictatorship for well over a decade, as Islamist ruler Recep Tayyip Erdogan has consolidated power, eliminated his political foes, and bought out or shut down critical media.

But the Reichstag fire that propelled him to dictator status occurred last July, when an amateurish coup d’etat allowed him to purge 120,000 government employees and jail more than 40,000 of his political opponents.

Erdogan called the failed coup a “gift from God.” Indeed, it has given him a pretext to eliminate all opposition media and to impose strict border controls to catch would-be opponents as they attempt to leave the country, as totalitarians have done for generations.

Less known to the general public — and absolutely critical for understanding Erdogan’s reason for coming to Washington on May 16 to meet with President Trump — are his ties to the Islamic State of Iran.

A 900-page indictment compiled by Turkish state prosecutors in 2013 spelled out details of those ties, which allegedly involve billions of dollars in bribes from an Iranian government money-laundering network paid to Erdogan, his family, and cronies in government.

Americans would know little about that investigation — or indeed, Erdogan’s corrupt ties to Tehran — were it not for the missteps of the alleged money-launderer-in-chief, 33-year old Turkish-Iranian citizen Reza Zarrab, who was arrested by Customs and Border Patrol agents in March 2016 at a Florida airport while attempting to take his family to Disney World.

Zarrab is now facing prosecution in New York on money-laundering charges and has hired an impressive stable of white-shoe attorneys, including former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, whose law firm is a registered foreign agent for Turkey.

Giuliani was outed by federal prosecutor Michael Lockard after court filings in which Giuliani explained a late February 2017 meeting with Erdogan as an attempt to find a diplomatic solution to the Zarrab case that would be in America’s national security interest.

Dr. Ahmet Yayla, a highly-respected former police chief in southeastern Turkey, believes that Erdogan tasked Giuliani with proposing a deal to President Trump: drop prosecution against Zarrab in exchange for Turkish acquiescence to U.S. arming the Kurds. Even Zarrab’s chief defense lawyer admitted that Giuliani’s role in the case was unprecedented.

The original Turkish indictment, which Yayla shared with me, detailed Zarrab’s vast alleged oil-for-gold money laundering scheme that allowed Iran to circumvent international sanctions, sell upwards of $200 billion in oil and use the Turkish banking system by paying bribes to Erdogan and members of his immediate family.

Prosecutors in Turkey arrested Zarrab on December 17, 2013, for paying bribes to four members of then Prime Minister Erdogan’s cabinet, including his son-in-law, Berat Albayrak. Erdogan then fired the prosecutors, police investigators and judges involved in the probe.

Two months later, audiotapes of phone conversations between Erdogan and his son, Bilal, posted on line, revealed Erdogan instructing his son to remove $1 billion in cash from his home and the homes of family members before the police arrived. (Erdogan has not disputed the authenticity of his voice, but claims the tapes were altered).

But the real scandal is Erdogan’s deep ties to Tehran, which go way beyond the Zarrab money-laundering scheme and Erdogan’s corruption.

I first got wind of Iran’s extensive intelligence network in Turkey during a 1994 reporting trip to Istanbul for Time Magazine. The French counter-terrorism judge investigating the murder of Shahpour Bakhtiar, the last prime minister of the former shah, recommended me to Istanbul police chief Nezdet Menzir, who he said had provided critical intelligence on the Iranian government hit team that had carried out the Bakhtiar assassination.

During several days of meetings, Menzir not only provided me information on the specific Iranian hit team that had used Turkey as a logistics hub for the assassination in France, but detailed a vast Iranian government intelligence network then operating in Turkey that was responsible for the murder of Turkish journalists and intellectuals.

Yayla says a second Turkish government indictment, also shut down by Erdogan in December 2013, detailed the ongoing efforts of that same Iranian government intelligence network in Turkey. Only now, it named the Iranian regime’s top operatives.

They include members of Erdogan’s cabinet and, most astonishingly, the current director of Turkish National Intelligence, Hakan Fidan, according to Yayla.

No wonder Erdogan wants to meet President Trump, get front-man Zarrab away from American prosecutors and reporters, and has paid $1.1 millionto a Washington, D.C., public relations firm for one week’s work during his visit. The Iranian skeletons in his closet would sink a ship.

Instead of giving in to his demands, the President should inform Erdogan that the United States will be arming the Kurds regardless of Turkish policies, and could make things much worse for Erdogan should the Turks again bomb our Kurdish allies in Syria. Why should we save his sinking ship?

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Hill.

Stop legitimizing the regime in Iran!

The Islamic republic in Iran’s elections have NEVER been democratic under their electoral system and its Islamic constitution.

Unlike many Iranians, I do not travel back and forth to Iran, do not do business with the Islamic Republic, and do not hold a valid Iranian passport. As such, I have no vested interest in the survival of this regime.

I am a Canadian with an Iranian heritage. not an Iranian with a Canadian passport living in Canada merely as a “guest”. I wish to cut off the hands of the Islamic Republic agents and infiltrators from Canada and do not promote or defend the Islamic Republic’s policy or ideology. My loyalty is to Canada not to an antiquated regime governed under seventh century Islamic laws. I stand on guard for Canada while speaking out against human rights violations and terrorism by the Islamic Republic.

I take pride in the fact that I never participated in the Islamic Republic of Iran’s sham elections and never voted for any of their ‘PRE’ selected presidential candidates.

In my opinion those who supports this criminal regime and participate in their s/elections, by legitimizing this criminal regime, inadvertently have their hands in the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iranians who have been executed, murdered, imprisoned, tortured, and raped.

It should never be taken lightly that the so called ‘reformist’ advocate’ agenda wholeheartedly supports the Islamic Republic’s constitution, and practices of Sharia law where they are heavily funded by the regime in Iran. They preach reform but the very nature of these reforms have never been clarified. Will there be political prisoners, torture, stoning, and amputations under reform?

It is worth noting that the 1988 mass executions occurred while Mr. Mir Hossein Moussavi, one the two leaders of the Green Movement, was Prime Minister of Iran. Karroubi and Moussavi were both founding members of the Islamic Republic who committed plenty of atrocities during their time in power.

A list with picture of martyrs killed by Islamic Republic in Iran after the election coup d’etat !

The infamous Chain Murders of Iran (the assassinations of opposition leaders both inside Iran and abroad) and the Buenos Aires bombing of the largest Jewish center also occurred during the Rafsanjani “reformist” era. Our very own Canadian photojournalist, Zahra Kazemi, whose son still wakes up hearing the screams of his mother, died under vile torture in 2003 under the presidency of Mr. Khatami, the most “moderate” of all of reformists. Miss. Maryam Ayubi, 31, was slowly stoned to death in 2001 (Amnesty International July 11, 2001 report); one of 38 unfortunate souls stoned during so called reform (Boroumand Foundation). Mr. Feyzollah Mekhubad, 77, had his face whipped and eyes gouged out in 1995 for making phone calls to relatives in Israel and the USA (Amnesty International Report May 1995, and Boroumand Memorial). Who is to speak for them if only the voices of reformists are being heard? Can a regime with such atrocities be truly reformed?

Due to a weak immigration vetting system, the Islamic Republic has been so successful in infiltrating Canada and advocating for its survival from our Canadian soil. In the years to come, the Government of Canada can NEVER say they were not warned about anti-Canadian activities funded by the Islamic Republic in Iran through the so called ‘reformists’ apologists. How appeasing these Iranian pro-nuclear and pro-terror mouthpieces benefits Canadians remains a puzzle to us.

Participating in the Islamic Republic’s Sham Elections only legitimizes the regime. I hope that Canada returns to her previously tough position against the regime in Iran, will not give in to pressures created by the Islamic Republic mouthpiece and agents in Canada, and stop giving a voice to them, which is not only is a slap in the face and an insult to human rights advocates, but insidiously dangerous for Canada.

Please sign this petition and tell The White House not to allow the Islamic Republic in Iran to have ballot boxes for their sham elections in the United States.

“The truth is like a lion. You don’t have to defend it. Let it loose and it will defend itself.” St. Augustine.

RELATED ARTICLE: What does Canada get out of restoring diplomatic ties with Iran?

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Times of Israel.

TAKE ACTION: Email the 9th Circuit Court supporting President Trump’s travel ban

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on President Trump’s revised travel ban from early March.  The federal appeals court held a hearing on May 15, 2017 at 12:30 p.m. ET in Seattle to hear the case filed by the State of Hawaii. The court reviewed the decision issued by Hawaii U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson regarding the ban’s enforcement.

The three judge panel for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals includes Judges Ronald Gould, Richard Paez and Michael Daly Hawkins.  All three judges were appointed by President Bill Clinton.

US District Judge Derrick K. Watson issued an order that halted enforcement of the travel ban on the erroneous basis that it likely violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it allegedly discriminates against Muslims.

The ACLU lawyer in the Maryland travel ban case admitted that the executive order would be constitutional if a different president had ordered it.   Fourth US Circuit Court Judge Paul V. Niemeyer questioned the plaintiffs’ attorney, Omar Jadwat, in the Maryland case about his motive for opposing the ban.  Judge Niemeyer asked “If some other candidate had won the election and issued this order, I gather you would have no problem with that.”  Then Judge Niemeyer stated and asked Jadwat “We have an order on its face. We can read this order and we have no antecedent statements by a candidate about this order. We have a candidate who won the presidency — some candidate other than President Trump won the presidency — and then chose to issue this particular order with whatever counsel he took. … He issued this executive order. Do I understand that just in that circumstance the executive order should be honored?”  Jadwat had already twice refused to answer the question, but when the judge offered such a comprehensive hypothetical, he admitted: “Yes, your honor, I think in that case it could be constitutional.”

Judge Watson’s order:

  • Failed to recognize the president’s statutory authority to execute the ban pursuant to Sections 1182(f) and 1185(a) of Title 8.
  • Failed to consider the travel ban addressed only six of forty-nine (12%) Muslim majority countries.  Pew Research reported on January 31, 2017 there are forty-nine Muslim majority countries.
  • Ignored the fact that the travel ban applied equally to all nationalities and religions from the six designated countries.
  • Failed to recognize that for the past 30 years, every President has invoked that power to protect the Nation by suspending entry of categories of aliens.
  • Is unprecedented in that it restrains an executive order by the President of the United States because of statements that he made as a private citizen before he swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution.
  • Strongly appears to place a priority on politics instead of justice.

Judge Watson’s order perpetuates a dangerous myth that President Trump’s travel ban is a “Muslim Ban.”  What other federal laws will be unenforceable against Muslims if the U.S. Courts erroneously rule that President Trump and his administration are biased against Muslims?

Nearly 25,000 people sent emails in 2014 and 2015 through Floridafamily.org that urged the judges serving on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a three judge panel decision that banned the Youtube.com video titled Innocence of Muslims, a critique of Mohammad.

Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send to urge Judges Ronald Gould, Richard Paez and Michael Daly Hawkins to make national security a priority over politics and public safety a priority over political correctness in the case of Hawaii v Trump.

To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the “Send Your Message” button. You may also edit the subject or message text if you wish.

Click here to send your email to urge the 9th Circuit Court judges to make national security a priority over politics and public safety a priority over political correctness in the case of Hawaii v Trump.