Posts

Hawaii: Rogue judge once again rules for the Imam, attempts to thwart Trump on refugees

Judge Derrick Watson

This latest was predicted and reported here by Michael Leahy at Breitbart two days ago.

Judge Derrick Watson took advantage of the mess the Supreme Court made in its recent ruling (as Justice Thomas predicted) to once again attempt to stop President Trump from carrying out a simple 120-day moratorium on refugee resettlement in order to analyze the program and determine whether security screening is sufficient.

The Supreme Court literally unconstitutionally legislated when it created a way to go around a Presidentially-determined ceiling as defined by over 3 decades of refugee law and said refugees with a “bona fide relationship” to a family member or to an “entity” could come in over the 50,000 ceiling reached yesterday (here).

BTW, today we have now exceeded the 50,000 ceiling by 168. We are at 50,168 this morning.

Before I give you Politico’s version of the judge’s decision in Hawaii yesterday, let me be clear!

The US State Department under Sec. of State Rex Tillerson must ignore this decision!

(They should have ignored this rogue judge’s earlier decision as well! You should write to the White House and tell Trump to stand against this runaway judiciary!)

One Hawaiian judge deciding for one Imam (and the refugee-rejecting state of Hawaii!) should not be the one to define “bona fide” a wholly new legal term and a new construct for resettlement thanks to the overzealous SCOTUS.  Where the hell is Congress, btw? Writing law is their job!

Here is Politico:

A federal judge in Hawaii ordered the Trump administration on Thursday to allow grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles and other relatives of people in the U.S. to circumvent the travel ban policy, dealing a temporary blow to one of the president’s signature initiatives.

Along with the State of Hawaii, Imam Ismail Elshikh is a plaintiff in the case.

In an order issued Thursday evening local time in Honolulu, Judge Derrick Watson also prohibited the administration from blocking refugees with a commitment from a resettlement agency in the U.S., a move that could revive the flow of refugee admissions this year.

The decision was a victory for opponents of the travel ban, who hoped to broaden the universe of people who could bypass the president’s policy, which temporarily bars travelers from six majority-Muslim nations and suspends the refugee resettlement program.

The Supreme Court issued an order on June 26 that allowed the embattled measure to go into effect, but included the caveat that affected travelers with “bona fide” ties to a person or entity in the U.S. should not be subject to the ban.

[….]

In the realm of refugee resettlement, the administration stood by the contention that a connection to a resettlement agency alone would not meet the criteria to avoid the ban.

[….]

The federal judge added that a refugee with a commitment from a resettlement agency met the standard for a “bona fide” relationship spelled out in the Supreme Court order.

[….]

“It is formal, it is a documented contract, it is binding, it triggers responsibilities and obligations, including compensation, it is issued specific to an individual refugee only when that refugee has been approved for entry by the Department of Homeland Security, and it is issued in the ordinary course, and historically has been for decades,” he wrote. [Don’t let the refugee contractors*** fool you, here we have it, this is about their compensation by you, the American taxpayer!–ed]

“Bona fide does not get any more bona fide than that.”

[….]
On Twitter, an attorney for the plaintiffs, the state of Hawaii and a local imam, celebrated the momentary legal win, which could be met with appeals by the federal government.

Appeals! The Administration better simply ignore this single judge and the Imam!

This post is filed in my ‘Supreme Court’ category, click here for other stories on the hash the Supreme Court has made of refugee law.

***Federal contractors/middlemen/lobbyists/community organizers paid by you to place refugees in your towns and cities.  Because their income is largely dependent on taxpayer dollars based on the number of refugees admitted to the US, the only way for real reform of how the US admits refugees is to remove the contractors from the process.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump puts brakes on Obama immigration plan

Trump favors Christian refugees over Muslims, 50%-38%, says State data

Germany reaping the whirlwind of infectious diseases admitted to the country along with the migrants

Japan holds firm, admits only TINY number of refugees

I haven’t written about Japan for awhile, and since we have so many new readers, I figured it was time to point this out (again)—Japan only takes a tiny number of refugees!

trump-and-prime-minister-shinzo-abe

President Donald J. Trump and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe

And, consequently, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has been haranguing Japan for years to open its doors (and begin diluting their culture!) to the masses of Middle Eastern and African (mostly Muslim) migrants on the move around the world.  Japan has resisted.

And I have not seen the UNHCR harangue China, Saudi Arabia or some other Middle Eastern countries in the same way they nag Japan.

Here is an activist from the UK badmouthing Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, at The Diplomat:

When asked for his view on the U.S. president’s executive order to ban the entry of people from seven Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East and Africa, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s response was very disappointing.“We are not in a position to express the view of the Japanese government,” he said at the Upper House on January 30. Not surprisingly, he did not bring up the travel ban’s issue when he met President Donald Trump earlier this month.

In contrast to the clear disagreement with the travel ban expressed by other world leaders, the Japanese leader’s response received criticism from the opposition and civil society. Many theorized that the prime minister had avoided criticizing the new U.S. president in order to protect Japan’s national interests, in particular its economy and security. Yet others pointed out a more fundamental problem: Japan cannot point its finger at any other country’s immigration policy.

Japan’s record on immigration and refugees is not something that the country can be proud of. In 2016, Japan granted refugee status to only 28 people out of 10,901 applicants. In other words, 99 percent of applications were rejected.

It is not enough for the nags that Japan is one of the world’s top contributors to the UNHCR:

Japan is one of the top donors to the UN Refugee Agency (UNCHR). It contributed $164,726,114 in 2016, making Japan the fourth largest donor after the United States, European Union, and Germany. Yet instead of turning this generosity to welcome refugees on its soil, Japan crosses its arms to those who actually arrive on its doorstep. On January 30, when discussing the U.S. travel ban, Abe added after his response, “At any rate, we believe the international community should jointly cope with refugee issues.”

To learn more about Japan’s limited involvement with ‘welcoming’ disparate cultures to the country, read on.

So far, Japan’s leadership is smart enough to look around the world and ask—why should we invite the problems we see in Sweden, Germany, France, The Netherlands and the US to our tiny country?

For my previous posts on Japan, go here.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Texas immigration control citizen activists must lead!

Tucker to World Relief Prez: How can you claim it is Christian charity when you take millions from taxpayers?

Poll: Majority Want Fewer Refugees, Support Donald Trump’s Migration Cuts

‘IT WAS NORMAL’ Captured ISIS militant who ‘killed 500 people and raped 200 Yazidi women’ says he has few regrets

Young Iranian chess grandmaster expelled from national team for not wearing hijab

Austria: Nine Muslim “refugees” gang-rape woman for two hours, ignoring her pleas

Obama’s ‘final solution’ for the state of Israel

On December 28th, 2016 John Kerry gave his final speech as the outgoing U.S. Secretary of State.  Kerry’s “Remarks on Middle East Peace” lasted 1 hour and 13 minutes. In his speech Kerry outlined President Obama’s “final solution” for the state of Israel.

One phrase struck me. Kerry stated, “Israel can be Jewish or democratic – not both.”

But Israel is already Jewish and democratic. There have been Israeli Arab members of the Knesset ever since the first Knesset elections in 1949. There are currently 17 Arab members of the Knesset, and 59 former Arab members. Kerry asked:

How would Israel respond to a growing civil rights movement from Palestinians, demanding a right to vote, or widespread protests and unrest across the West Bank? How does Israel reconcile a permanent occupation with its democratic ideals? How does the U.S. continue to defend that and still live up to our own democratic ideals?

Israel already recognizes the right of every Israeli citizen, Jew or Arab or Christian or Druz, el al, to vote. Israel has been dealing with terrorism against the Jewish state since 1949 and throughout its history, from ancient Rome to the PLO and HAMAS.

The U.S. continues to defend Israel because it is the basis, the foundation, of our own democratic ideals. Founding Father John Adams in a letter to F. A. Van der Kemp dated February 16, 1808 wrote:

“I will insist the Hebrews have [contributed] more to civilize men than any other nation. If I was an atheist and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations …

They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth. The Romans and their empire were but a bubble in comparison to the Jews. They have given religion to three-quarters of the globe and have influenced the affairs of mankind more and more happily than any other nation, ancient or modern.”

There are no Jewish members of the PLO nor in HAMAS, which controls the Gaza strip. Additionally, those nations surrounding Israel are Muslim and undemocratic, abiding by shariah laws that reject non-Muslims. Why? Because the Koran says so.

So what is Kerry projecting on behalf of President Obama? What has been, and clearly is, Obama’s “final solution” to end the conflict in the Middle East?

Answer: A Jew free Palestinian state.

Kerry focused on Jewish “settlements” in Judea and Samara, historic land that has belong to and had been occupied by, the Jewish people for thousands of years. Kerry sees these settlements as the existential threat to a two state solution stating:

So the settler agenda is defining the future of Israel. And their stated purpose is clear. They believe in one state: greater Israel. In fact, one prominent minister, who heads a pro-settler party, declared just after the U.S. election – and I quote – “the era of the two-state solution is over,” end quote. And many other coalition ministers publicly reject a Palestinian state. And they are increasingly getting their way, with plans for hundreds of new units in East Jerusalem recently announced and talk of a major new settlement building effort in the West Bank to follow.

Then Kerry asks, “So why are we so concerned? Why does this matter? Well, ask yourself these questions: What happens if that agenda succeeds? Where does that lead?”

May I suggest that a one state solution leads to what now exists in the Jewish state of Israel. A pluralistic society where all segments of the population, regardless of religious affiliation or ethnicity, live in peace side by side as individuals.

Kerry laments:

So if there is only one state, you would have millions of Palestinians permanently living in segregated enclaves in the middle of the West Bank, with no real political rights, separate legal, education, and transportation systems, vast income disparities, under a permanent military occupation that deprives them of the most basic freedoms. Separate and unequal is what you would have. And nobody can explain how that works. Would an Israeli accept living that way? Would an American accept living that way? Will the world accept it?

Under a united Jewish state of Israel Palestinians do have access to real political rights, education, transportation systems, serve in the IDF and have enhanced economic opportunities in what is know as “the startup nation.”

If you want to know what an independent Palestinian state would look like and act just look at the Gaza strip. A radicalized Islamic state that is Jew free where its citizens have no political rights and suffer under a regime more interested in arming itself for the sole purpose of killing non-Muslims and an exporter of terrorism globally.

The only option going forward for President-elect Trump is a one state solution.

As David Friedman, President-elect Trump’s nominee to become the ambassador to Israel said in a pre-election interview with The Algemeiner in early November:

“It is inconceivable there could be a mass evacuation on that magnitude, in the unlikely event that there was an otherwise comprehensive peace agreement,” Friedman said. “It makes no sense for Judea and Samaria to be ‘Judenrein [void of Jews],’ any more than it makes sense for Israel to be ‘Arabrein [void of Arabs].’ It’s not fair.”

The two-state solution is dead. Long live the one-state solution.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

How Barack Obama fooled the Jews and betrayed them once he had their money

Security Council Resolution 2334: The Legal Significance

John Kerry is Dead Wrong about Israeli Settlements by Gregg Roman The Los Angeles Times

Obama and Kerry Seek to Make Israel Indefensible

Kerry Takes a Parting Shot at Israel in Middle East Speech

RELATED VIDEO: Tom Trento, Director of The United West hosts Dr. Andy Bostom and Ken Abramowitz in studio to deconstruct the devastating decision by the Obama Administration to abstain from voting on the UN National Security Council, regarding the issue of “settlements” in Israel.

What would I ask Republican Presidential candidates tonight?

Someone asked me to prepare a list of questions I might ask Republican candidates tonight in Milwaukee.  So I wrote up a quick list and thought I would share them with you.  Now mind you, there is no way that anyone would ever ask the candidates if they would scratch the whole darn Refugee Admissions Program, so that is not one of my questions.

  1. The Obama Administration has said recently that it will admit 10,000 Syrians in the fiscal year 2016 resettlement of 85,000 third world refugees to American towns and cities in 48 states, yet the Director of the FBI James Comey recently told Congress that the Syrians, coming from a failed state, could not be properly screened. In this battle between the U.S. State Department (that wants many more than 10,000), and the FBI (Homeland Security concerned with the possible infiltration of ISIS in the refugee population), how would you bring your cabinet together on this critical issue?
  2. The Center for Immigration Studies recently released a new study which finds that a Syrian family of four resettled in America will cost U.S. taxpayers over a quarter of a million dollars over five years. Would that factor figure into your decision on how many refugees America can afford because it is the President who has almost exclusive power for determining refugee numbers and makes that determination every September?
  3. Recently Senator Jeff Sessions office released data on welfare use of refugees in America and found that 90% of Middle Eastern refugees were using some form of social services—food stamps, cash assistance, Medicaid and so forth—and that rate was higher for that group than refugees from elsewhere in the world. There are also reports of widespread fraud in the welfare application process. What would you do to discourage fraud and limit welfare for all classes of immigrant?
  4. The United Nations is choosing most refugees admitted to the U.S. (over 20,000 Syrians have been referred by the UN) and 97% of the Syrians chosen thus far have been Muslims who are presently housed in UN camps. Would you go against the UN and seek out Christian and other religious minorities in need of resettlement as a first priority?
  5. In 2014, the U.S. admitted 67% of the refugees that were resettled anywhere, the next highest country was Canada with 9%. If you were President would you urge a more equitable distribution to first world countries?
  6. The world is watching in horror as Europe is being inundated with tens of thousands of migrants. Approximately 8,000 are arriving in Germany each day (originally welcomed by the government). Only about half are Syrians and the largest percentage are economic migrants, not legitimate refugees. If you, as President, had a private meeting with Chancellor Angela Merkel, what would you say to her?
  7. The refugees being housed presently in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan will be there temporarily, perhaps years, but they will not be given citizenship rights. Those resettled to the U.S. and other western countries are permanent residents on a track to citizenship. What alternative would you suggest for managing, especially the Syrian flow, short of making tens of thousands of them U.S. citizens?
  8. Our present system of resettling refugees is virtually controlled by the UN, the U.S. State Department and nine federal contractors which monopolize the resettlement of refugees and even choose the towns and cities where they will go. In a ______ Administration would you seek to reform this out-of-control resettlement program and give some authority to state and local elected officials which virtually have none right now? Would your administration propose or support existing reform legislation?
  9. Non-profit organizations affiliated with some religious denominatons are being paid millions of tax dollars each year to bring refugee families to cities of their choosing and in three to six months that family is expected to be on its own and the non-profit then brings in the next group incentivized by a federal payment that is calculated by the head (per refugee). Would you pledge to reform the program to put more responsibility back on to private charity as the original act of 1980 invisioned?
  10. There have been many reports recently of school systems overloaded with needy immigrant students who require extra help with learning English and to deal with mental traumas, would your administration seek a moratorium on resettlement until officials in overloaded cities and local and state taxpayers could catch their breath?

Don’t hold your breath!  I would be blown away if there is any question relating to refugees tonight in Milwaukee, even though, as I said in my previous post this morning—immigration is THE issue for 2016!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Note to Antonio Guterres! Terrorists do use refugees as cover to get into Europe

Another South Carolina County Council says no to refugee resettlement

Obama plan to use executive amnesty for a half a million illegal aliens, blocked in 5th Circuit Appeals Court decision

Analysis: Iranian human rights situation following Iran deal by Rachel Avraham

A recent report by the Boroujerdi Civil Rights Group has documented that in spite of Iranian promises in the wake of the Iran deal, the rate of executions remains high, the jailing of journalists and human rights activists continues unabated, and the lack of freedom of expression and discrimination against women continues to be widespread: “The five main reasons for death penalties in Iran are heresy, rape, murder, drug smuggling and armed struggle.  Capital punishment has spiked under Rouhani.   More than 2000 executions were carried in Iran during President Rouhani’s period since October 3, 2013.   The human rights situation has not improved since Rouhani became President two years ago.”

iran men hanged

Public execution in Iran. Photo Credit: Channel 2.

The Boroujerdi Civil Rights Group noted that the rate of executions in Iran has risen by 16% since the last year of Ahmadinejad’s presidency, despite the perception in the West that Rouhani is a moderate and Ahmadinejad was a hard core extremist: “Furthermore, Iran has the horrible status of being the world’s last official executioner of child offenders, people convicted of crimes when they were under the age of 18.”

The report noted that the UN confirmed that the Bahais are still persecuted in Iran despite claims by the Iranian government to the contrary: “Bahai citizens continue to face discrimination, arrest and arbitrary detention in connection with their religion.  Bahais have been systematically persecuted since 1979; extremist Islamic groups close to the regime have confiscated their property and assets.”   The report also noted that Bahais are not given work permits, are deprived of the right to attend university, and don’t have any representative in parliament, a privilege that is given to other religious groups within the country.   They stressed that Bahais aren’t even permitted to bury their loved ones in public cemeteries: “Since 2005, more than 800 Bahais have been arrested.   Over the years, thousands of pieces of anti-Bahai propaganda have been disseminated in the Iranian media.”

According to the report, Iran treats the Baloch nation living with her borders like second class citizens: “Balochistan has the lowest economic participation in the country, the highest illiteracy rate, the highest unemployment rate, the highest percentage of poverty, the highest rate of executions, the highest mortality rates for mothers and children, and the highest percentage of malnutrition.   Living in the poor region of Balochistan is a torture in itself but the people of this region go through different types of tortures and persecutions. The medieval tortures are a bitter memorial of what Iran’s officials have been using against Baloch dissidents in the regimes detention centers.”   According to the report, the methods of torture employed against Baloch dissidents include waterboarding, pulling out fingernails, cutting off fingers, hanging the dissidents from the ceiling, lashings, high voltage shocks, shoving sharp objects into sensitive organs, burning sensitive organs, rape, roast chicken torture, mock executions, sexual harassment, hanging objects from the testicles, and lethal injection.

Read more.

RELATED ARTICLE: German Intel: Muslim migrants will bring anti-Semitism

Obama Administration and UN Announce Global Police Force to Fight ‘Extremism’ In U.S.

You know what “extremism” means for Obama: patriots. You can get all the background on Obama’s disregard for American sovereignty in my book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War On America. Read my expose at Breitbart:

Obama Kerry Biden Lynch UN

“Obama Administration and UN Announce Global Police Force to Fight ‘Extremism’ In U.S.,” by Pamela Geller, Breitbart News, October 2, 2015:

On Wednesday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced at the United Nations that her office would be working in several American cities to form what she called the Strong Cities Network (SCN), a law enforcement initiative that would encompass the globe.

This amounts to nothing less than the overriding of American laws, up to and including the United States Constitution, in favor of United Nations laws that would henceforth be implemented in the United States itself – without any consultation of Congress at all.

The United Nations is a sharia-compliant world body, and Obama, speaking there just days ago, insisted that “violent extremism” is not exclusive to Islam (which it is). Obama is redefining jihad terror to include everyone but the jihadists. So will the UN, driven largely by the sharia-enforcing Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the pro-Islamic post-American President Obama, use a “global police force” to crush counter-jihad forces?

After all, with Obama knowingly aiding al-Qaeda forces in Syria, how likely is it that he will use his “global police force” against actual Islamic jihadists? I suspect that instead, this global police force will be used to impose the blasphemy laws under the sharia (Islamic law), and to silence all criticism of Islam for the President who proclaimed that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

What is a global police force doing in our cities? This is exactly the abdication of American sovereignty that I warned about in my book, The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America. The Obama Department of Justice made it clear that it was exactly that when it distributed a press release last week announcing the “Launch of Strong Cities Network to Strengthen Community Resilience Against Violent Extremism.” In that press release, the DoJ complained that “while many cities and local authorities are developing innovative responses to address this challenge, no systematic efforts are in place to share experiences, pool resources and build a community of cities to inspire local action on a global scale.”

So if the local and municipal effort to counter the euphemistic and disingenuous “violent extremism” is inadequate and hasn’t developed “systematic efforts are in place to share experiences, pool resources and build a community of cities to inspire local action on a global scale,” the feds – and the UN – have to step in. Thus the groundwork is being laid for federal and international interference down to the local level. “The Strong Cities Network,” Lynch declared, “will serve as a vital tool to strengthen capacity-building and improve collaboration” – i.e., local dependence on federal and international authorities.

Lynch made the global (that is, United Nations) involvement clear when she added: “As we continue to counter a range of domestic and global terror threats, this innovative platform will enable cities to learn from one another, to develop best practices and to build social cohesion and community resilience here at home and around the world.”

This internationalist character was brought to the fore by the fact that the Strong Cities Network was launched on September 29 not at the White House or the Department of Homeland Security, or at the FBI headquarters or anywhere else that might be fitting for a national project, but at the United Nations.

Even more ominously, the DoJ press release says that the Strong Cities Network “will strengthen strategic planning and practices to address violent extremism in all its forms by fostering collaboration among cities, municipalities and other sub-national authorities.” Sub-national and international: the press release then quotes Governing Mayor Stian Berger Røsland of Oslo, Norway, a participant in the Strong Cities Network, saying: “To counter violent extremism we need determined action at all levels of governance. To succeed, we must coordinate our efforts and cooperate across borders. The Strong Cities Network will enable cities across the globe pool our resources, knowledge and best practices together and thus leave us standing stronger in the fight against one of the greatest threats to modern society.”

But what is that greatest threat, exactly? Remember, the DoJ presser says that the SCN will “address violent extremism in all its forms.” It also says that it will aid initiatives that are working toward “building social cohesion and resilience to violent extremism.” “Building social cohesion” is a euphemism for keeping peace between non-Muslim and Muslim communities – mostly by making sure that non-Muslims don’t complain too loudly about, much less work against, rapidly expanding Muslim populations and the Islamization of their communities.

The DoJ presser noted that at the launch of the Strong Cities Network, “welcoming remarks” would be offered by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein and Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York City. The involvement of New York City’s Marxist internationalist mayor is yet another warning sign.

Assert American sovereignty and individual rights. Contact your representatives now. Exhort them to oppose SCN now. Exhort them to keep America free – while it still is.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on PamelaGeller.com. To stay on top of what’s really happening pleas follow Pamela on Twitter and like her on Facebook here.

Obama Proselytizes for Islam at UN Summit

Platitudes, self-righteousness, distortions, tortured reasoning, self-promotion — that’s right, it’s another major speech by Barack Obama. Mind you, while the sharia-compliant president was bloviating at the UN, another major city in Afghanistan fell to the Taliban and the House Committee on Homeland Security released a blockbuster report that called the thousands of foreign fighters who have joined to fight ISIS the “largest global convergence of jihadists in history.”

“Remember that violent extremism is not unique to any one faith,” Obama told a U.N. meeting Sept. 29. “No-one should be profiled or targeted simply because of their faith… [and] we have to commit ourselves to build diverse, tolerant, inclusive, societies that reject anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant bigotry that creates the divisions, the fear, and the resentments upon which extremists can prey.”

Comments interspersed below.

“Remarks by President Obama at the Leaders’ Summit on Countering ISIL and Violent Extremism,” United Nations Headquarters, September 29, 2015:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, heads of state and government. Last year, here at the United Nations, I called on the world to unite against the evil that is ISIL, or Daesh, and to eradicate the scourge of violent extremism. And I challenged countries to return to the General Assembly this year with concrete steps that we can take together.

He challenged countries? It was up to them to come up with concrete steps to beat ISIS? This from a man who confessed in August 2014 that “we don’t have a strategy yet” to beat the Islamic State, and said in June 2015that the U.S. had no “complete strategy” for training Iraqis to fight the Islamic State. Apparently he was waiting for other countries to draw up a strategy for him. Putin obliged him, but he rejected that one.

I want to thank everyone who is here today, including my fellow leaders, for answering this call. We are joined by representatives from more than 100 nations, more than 20 multilateral institutions, some 120 civil society groups from around the world, and partners from the private sector. I believe what we have here today is the emergence of a global movement that is united by the mission of degrading and ultimately destroying ISIL.

He used that language before. Since then, the Islamic State has only grown in strength, while Obama’s Pentagon had to resort to falsifying data to make it look as if Obama’s cosmetic airstrikes were successful.

Together, we’re pursuing a comprehensive strategy that is informed by our success over many years in crippling the al Qaeda core in the tribal regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan. And we are harnessing all of our tools — military, intelligence, economic, development and the strength of our communities.

The al Qaeda core in Afghanistan is crippled? But al Qaeda’s ally, the Taliban, just took Kunduz in northern Afghanistan, a major city far from its usual sphere of influence. The Taliban doesn’t seem crippled at all.

Now, I have repeatedly said that our approach will take time. This is not an easy task. We have ISIL taking root in areas that already are suffering from failed governance, in some cases; in some cases, civil war or sectarian strife. And as a consequence of the vacuum that exists in many of these areas, ISIL has been able to dig in. They have shown themselves to be resilient, and they are very effective through social media and have been able to attract adherents not just from the areas in which they operate, but in many of our own countries.

They’re not attracting adherents because they’re effective through social media. That’s just the medium; the message is what attracts adherents. But Obama is bound as a matter of policy to ignore their message, so he has to pretend that the way they package it is what counts. And then he has the audacity to say we must combat their ideology — an ideology he has consistently refused to acknowledge even exists:

There are going to be successes and there are going to be setbacks. This is not a conventional battle. This is a long-term campaign — not only against this particular network, but against its ideology. And so with the few minutes I have, I want to provide a brief overview of where we stand currently.

Our coalition has grown to some 60 nations, including our Arab partners. Together, we welcome three new countries to our coalition — Nigeria, Tunisia and Malaysia. Nearly two dozen nations are in some way contributing to the military campaign, and we salute and are grateful for all the servicemembers from our respective nations who are performing with skill and determination.

Nigeria is the home of Boko Haram, which has allied with the Islamic State. Tunisia has sent a huge number of jihadis to join the Islamic State. It is likely that there are more Nigerians and Tunisians on the side of the Islamic State than will be joining the coalition against it.

In Iraq, ISIL continues to hold Mosul, Fallujah and Ramadi. But Iraqi forces, backed by coalition air power, have liberated towns across Kirkuk province and Tikrit. ISIL has now lost nearly a third of the populated areas in Iraq that it had controlled. Eighteen countries are now helping to train and support Iraqi forces, including Sunni volunteers who want to push ISIL out of their communities. And, Prime Minister Abadi, I want to note the enormous sacrifices being made by Iraqi forces and the Iraqi people in this fight every day.

Obama’s claims about the Islamic State losing territory have already been discredited.

In Syria, which has obviously been a topic of significant discussion during the course of this General Assembly, we have seen support from Turkey that has allowed us to intensify our air campaign there. ISIL has been pushed back from large sections of northeastern Syria, including the key city of Tal Abyad, putting new pressure on its stronghold of Raqqa. And ISIL has been cut off from almost the entire region bordering Turkey, which is a critical step toward stemming the flow of foreign terrorist fighters.

One step forward, two steps back: Turkey is more interested in fighting the Kurds than fighting the Islamic State. Turkish attacks on the Kurds weaken the most effective ground force currently facing the Islamic State. The U.S. has been accused of selling out the Kurds to gain Turkish support against ISIS, and that support has been meager in any case.

Following the special Security Council meeting I chaired last year, more than 20 additional countries have passed or strengthened laws to disrupt the flow of foreign terrorist fighters. We share more information and we are strengthening border controls. We’ve prevented would-be fighters from reaching the battlefield and returning to threaten our countries. But this remains a very difficult challenge, and today we’re going to focus on how we can do more together. In conjunction with this summit, the United States and our partners are also taking new steps to crack down on the illicit finance that ISIL uses to pay its fighters, fund its operations and launch attacks.

How successful has the U.S. been in stopping foreign jihadis from joining ISIS? Now 30,000 foreign jihadis from 100 countries have joined the Islamic State.

Our military and intelligence efforts are not going to succeed alone; they have to be matched by political and economic progress to address the conditions that ISIL has exploited in order to take root. Prime Minister Abadi is taking important steps to build a more inclusive and accountable government, while working to stabilize areas taken back from ISIL. And our nations need to help Prime Minister Abadi in these efforts.

In Syria, as I said yesterday, defeating ISIL requires — I believe — a new leader and an inclusive government that unites the Syrian people in the fight against terrorist groups. This is going to be a complex process. And as I’ve said before, we are prepared to work with all countries, including Russia and Iran, to find a political mechanism in which it is possible to begin a transition process.

Obama’s repeated claims that the Islamic State can only be defeated if Assad is removed is based on the assumption that ISIS is not Islamic, and is just an opposition group to Assad, so that if Assad is gone, the Islamic State will vanish. Putin’s view is more realistic: he knows ISIS is Islamic, and claims to be the caliphate, and has global ambitions. He knows that if Assad falls, the Islamic State will be the main beneficiary.

As ISIL’s tentacles reach into other regions, the United States is increasing our counterterrorism cooperation with partners, like Tunisia. We’re boosting our support to Nigeria and its neighbors as they push back against Boko Haram, which has pledged allegiance to ISIL. And we’re creating a new clearinghouse to better coordinate the world’s support for countries’ counterterrorism programs so that our efforts are as effective as possible.

Ultimately, however, it is not going to be enough to defeat ISIL in the battlefield. We have to prevent it from radicalizing, recruiting and inspiring others to violence in the first place. And this means defeating their ideology. Ideologies are not defeated with guns, they’re defeated by better ideas — a more attractive and compelling vision. Building on our White House summit earlier this year, and summits around the world since then, we’re moving ahead, together, in several areas.

Ideologies are not defeated by guns? Really? Yet if National Socialism and Shinto militarism were not defeated by guns, what defeated them? Any serious and thoroughgoing effort to refute them as ideologies came after the guns had stopped firing, during the occupation of Germany and Japan, when the Allies worked to turn the hearts of the citizenry away from the beliefs in which they had been relentlessly indoctrinated for years.

What’s more, the United States is not trying to defeat the Islamic State, or the global jihad in general, with “a more attractive and more compelling vision.” Instead, we supervised the installations of constitutions that enshrined Sharia as the highest law of the land in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Imposing Sharia is the goal of all jihad groups, including the Islamic State. The United States has never stood in Iraq or Afghanistan, or anywhere else, for the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, equality of rights for women, etc. — all of which are denied in Sharia. In other words, we didn’t counter their ideas with a more attractive and compelling vision. We didn’t counter them at all, and still aren’t doing so, because to do so would be considered “Islamophobic.”

How is Obama going to counter their ideology when he won’t even acknowledge what it is? Three years ago, his administration banned the truth about Islam and jihad from counterterror training, bowing to the demands of Muslim, Arab and Pakistani organizations that wrote to John Brennan claiming that FBI and other agents were being imbued with “Islamophobia.” Since then, Obama, Brennan, John Kerry, Joe Biden and other Administration spokesmen have steadfastly refused to acknowledge that Islamic jihad has anything to do with Islam whatsoever – thus foreclosing upon any possibility that the United States will confront the jihad ideology in any serious or effective manner.

We’re stepping up our efforts to discredit ISIL’s propaganda, especially online. The UAE’s new messaging hub — the Sawab Center — is exposing ISIL for what it is, which is a band of terrorists that kills innocent Muslim men, women and children. We’re working to lift up the voices of Muslim scholars, clerics and others — including ISIL defectors — who courageously stand up to ISIL and its warped interpretations of Islam.

It’s interesting that he says that the Islamic State’s killing innocent Muslims is what will discredit them. He seems to know that their killing of non-Muslims won’t sway Muslims to oppose them. And as for the clerics and scholars who are exposing the Islamic State’s “warped interpretation of Islam,” does he mean these, who endorsed the concept of the caliphate, as well as jihad and dhimmitude in the course of condemning the Islamic State?

We recognize that we have to confront the economic grievances that exist in some of the areas that ISIL seeks to exploit. Poverty does not cause terrorism. But as we’ve seen across the Middle East and North Africa, when people, especially young people, are impoverished and hopeless and feel humiliated by injustice and corruption, that can fuel resentments that terrorists exploit. Which is why sustainable development — creating opportunity and dignity, particularly for youth — is part of countering violent extremism.

We recognize we also have to address the political grievances that ISIL exploits. I’ve said this before — when human rights are denied and citizens have no opportunity to redress their grievances peacefully, it feeds terrorist propaganda that justifies violence. Likewise, when political opponents are treated like terrorists and thrown in jail, it can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. So the real path to lasting stability and progress is not less democracy; I believe it is more democracy in terms of free speech, and freedom of religion, rule of law, strong civil societies. All that has to play a part in countering violent extremism.

So he is going to address their poverty, even while admitting that poverty doesn’t cause terrorism, and their political grievances. In doing these things, he thinks their religious vision will fade away. This is, of course, because he refuses to face it for what it is, has no idea of its strength, and won’t believe it has anything to do with Islam. The result will be that he will shower money on Muslim countries and make political concessions to them, and then, to his dismay, will find that the jihad continues.

And finally, we recognize that our best partners in protecting vulnerable people from succumbing to violent extremist ideologies are the communities themselves — families, friends, neighbors, clerics, faith leaders who love and care for these young people.

Remember that violent extremism is not unique to any one faith, so no one should be profiled or targeted simply because of their faith. Yet we have to recognize that ISIL is targeting Muslim communities around the world, especially individuals who may be disillusioned or confused or wrestling with their identities.

“No one should be profiled or targeted simply because of their faith.” If he was referring to attacks on innocent Muslims, of course, no innocent Muslims should suffer any harm or injustice. He seemed to be saying more than that. The idea that it is wrong to fight Islamic jihad by paying attention to Muslim communities more than Baptist or Jewish or Hindu or Amish communities is absurd. Islamic jihad is committed by Muslims. Obama won’t even call it Islamic jihad or admit that it is a specifically Muslim phenomenon, and insofar as he diverts any resources to tracking “right-wing extremism” on the basis of bogus studies, he makes us all less safe.

But as far as Obama is concerned, that the Islamic State is “targeting Muslim communities” makes Muslims the victims, deserving of special favors:

And in all our countries, we have to continue to build true partnerships with Muslim communities, based on trust and cooperation, so that they can help protect their loved ones from becoming radicalized. This cannot just be the work of government. It is up to all of us. We have to commit ourselves to build diverse, tolerant, inclusive societies that reject anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant bigotry that creates the divisions, the fear and the resentments upon which extremists can prey.

Islamic advocacy groups have worked for years to stigmatize all resistance to jihad terror as “bigotry.” Now the President of the United States is echoing their talking points.

…Like terrorists and tyrants throughout history, ISIL will eventually lose because it has nothing to offer but suffering and death. And when you look at the reports of those who are laboring under their control, it is a stark and brutal life that does not appeal to people over the long term. So we will ultimately prevail because we are guided by a stronger, better vision: a commitment to the security, opportunity and dignity of every human being. But it will require diligence, focus and sustained effort by all of us. And I am grateful that all of you who are already participating are committed to this work.

In reality, he never dares articulate that “stronger, better vision” in anything but platitudes. To do so in any realistic manner would require he discuss Islam and Sharia. And he will never do that.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on PamelaGeller.com. To stay on top of what’s really happening please follow Pamela on Twitter and like her on Facebook here.

Top UN scientists call for RICO investigation of climate skeptics in letter to Obama

Top UN scientist Dr. Kevin Trenberth and 19 other scientists have become so tired of debating global warming that they are now apparently seeking to jail those who disagree with them. One of the scientists who signed the letter was Alan Robock of Rutgers University. Robock has expressed very positive views of Cuba’s Fidel Castro after trips there in 2010 and 2011. See: Rutger’s Prof. Alan Robock drools over Castro and his VIP treatment in 2010 trip to Cuba robock@envsci.rutgers.edu – Robock’s enchanted meeting with Castro: I stayed at ‘nicest hotel…I went in a black Mercedes…I went to private meeting with Fidel & his family…we had photo taken together’

Prof. Robock & Fidel Castro in 2010.2011 Trip.

[Note: This call for treating skeptics as racketeers comes the same week that the New York Times promoted equating climate skeptics to Hitler. See: ‘The Next Genocide’- NYT OpEd: Climate ‘deniers’ present ‘intellectual stance that is uncomfortably close to Hitler’s’ ]

 

Climate skeptics heading to jail?

Letter reproduced in full:

Letter to President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren

September 1, 2015

Dear President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren,

As you Democrat Sen. Whitehouse: Use RICO Laws to Prosecute Global Warming Skepticsknow, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists are convinced about the potentially serious adverse effects of human-induced climate change on human health, agriculture, and biodiversity. We applaud your efforts to regulate emissions and the other steps you are taking. Nonetheless, as climate scientists we are exceedingly concerned that America’s response to climate change – indeed, the world’s response to climate change – is insufficient. The risks posed by climate change, including increasing extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and increasing ocean acidity – and potential strategies for addressing them – are detailed in the Third National Climate Assessment (2014), Climate Change Impacts in the United States. The stability of the Earth’s climate over the past ten thousand years contributed to the growth of agriculture and therefore, a thriving human civilization. We are now at high risk of seriously destabilizing the Earth’s climate and irreparably harming people around the world, especially the world’s poorest people.

We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change. The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peerreviewed academic research (Brulle, 2013) and in recent books including: Doubt is their Product (Michaels, 2008), Climate Cover-Up (Hoggan & Littlemore, 2009), Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes & Conway, 2010), The Climate War (Pooley, 2010), and in The Climate Deception Dossiers (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015). We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation.

The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry. A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking. If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done.

Sincerely,

Jagadish Shukla, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Dirmeyer, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Barry Klinger, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Schopf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
David Straus, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Sarachik, University of Washington, Seattle, W
Michael Wallace, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
William Lau, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
T.N. Krishnamurti, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Vasu Misra, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Ben Kirtman, University of Miami, Miami, FL
Robert Dickinson, University of Texas, Austin, TX
Michela Biasutti, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Mark Cane, Columbia University, New York, NY
Lisa Goddard, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Alan Betts, Atmospheric Research, Pittsford, VT

End letter

Related Links:

UN IPCC’s Kevin Trenberth’s History Of Making Bold Claims Which Contradict Science

Democrat Sen. Whitehouse: Use RICO Laws to Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on ClimateDepot.com.

U.S. Ambassador to UN Samantha Power: Bring more Muslim Syrian refugees to America

This news is a day old, so who knows maybe Obama has already decided the magic number of Syrian (mostly Muslim) refugees he will be dropping into America towns and cities in the coming year.

Samantha Power

Obama appointee, UN Ambassador Samantha Power.

Last week we learned that Sec. of State Kerry consulted with key House and Senate committees, as the Refugee Act of 1980 requires, and it seems the number he was bandying about was 10,000 (some say Kerry said 5,000) for FY 2016.

If Obama approves a different number just two weeks before the start of the fiscal year, Kerry is required to go back to the Hill for additional “consultation,” and, in any case, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees are required to hold hearings on the Presidential Determination.

The fact that the lazy (scared?) committees have not held a refugee ‘consultation’ hearing since before 9/11 is no excuse not to have one for this very critical decision!

(The last hearing held on the President’s refugee determination appears to be this one from 1999.  Has there been no hearing since then because they didn’t want you to know how many Muslims were being admitted to the US through this program?—ed)

A hearing can’t stop the President, but it sure can help the American people understand what is about to happen to them!

Where are you Reps. Goodlatte and Gowdy?  Prove me wrong!  Tell us you are doing something and I will apologize!

Here is a bit of interesting news at Bloomberg (hat tip: Joanne).  Again, it is a day old, so who knows if Obama has made a decision.

Check out Samantha Power (bff George Soros)!  The nerve of this woman.  You can credit her, Hillary and Susan Rice with the destabilization of North Africa and the  invasion of Europe because she was a driving force behind the ousting of Col. Gaddafi (who was able to hold back the migrant hordes) and the subsequent destruction of Libya.

As Iraqi Refugee Czar in the early days of the Obama White House, Power famously said she was tired of doing ‘rinkey-dink-do-gooder’ stuff  like helping Iraqi Christians!  See our complete Samantha Power archive here.

Here is Josh Rogin at Bloomberg:

The Obama administration is preparing to announce a plan to admit more refugees over the next two years, but at this point the numbers being proposed are too small to relieve the crisis streaming out of Syria.

Wednesday at the White House, the most senior national security officials will discuss raising the limit on the number of refugees from around the world allowed to enter the United States — from 70,000 this year to 85,000 next year and 100,000 in fiscal 2017, three administration officials told me. If members of the National Security Council Principals Committee agree on the plan, it will be sent to President Obama’s desk, and administration sources say he is likely to quickly approve it.

The plan has the strong support of White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, whose priorities often differ on the Syria issue. McDonough is focused on the fight against ISIS. Power wants to confront Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, and do more to protect the civilians being killed by both.  [So what does confront mean?  Does Power want the US military to bring down Assad?—ed]

The throngs of desperate migrants fleeing Syria and the images of children washing up on European shores have spurred the Obama administration into action, officials said.

Continue reading here.

Note that there is much discussion about how long it would take for the flow to get underway. Don’t believe it!  

We know that the UNHCR has 17,000 (or more by now) prepped to come to America from their camps which house Muslim Syrians.  As soon as October 1 is here, the floodgates will open!

RELATED ARTICLES:

CIA Director Worried Iran Might Outsource Nuke Program to North Korea

Wealthy Gulf Arab States close borders to Muslim Refugees for fear of Terrorism

Invasion of Europe news continued…

gulf-states-640x438-640x480

While you are looking at the above map courtesy of Breitbart, consider that Turkey is allowing ‘refugees’ to pass through and launch boats into the Aegean Sea so that thousands of the migrants can reach Greece. Why isn’t anyone criticizing Turkey? Or, turning the boats back to Turkey?

Breitbart has more news on a topic that obviously interests you.  Our post from last week, Why should US/Europe take Syrian refugees while Gulf Arab states take ZERO?, was visited by over 6,000 readers in a couple of days.  So what do the Gulf States know that we don’t, maybe that the “refugee” stream is composed of 75% men of fighting age!

demographics of muslim refugees

UN High Commissioner for Refugees chart on refugees from the Middle East. Ages not shown.

Here is Breitbart:

Five of the wealthiest Muslim countries have taken no Syrian refugees in at all, arguing that doing so would open them up to the risk of terrorism. Although the oil rich countries have handed over aid money, Britain has donated more than Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar combined.

No time today to linger, read it all here!

Our ‘Invasion’ archive is here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Comment from a Brit: We are headed for a disaster of epic proportions

Did facebook take down “horror story” at Italy/Austria border?

UNHCR data confirms it: 75% of the so-called refugees arriving in Europe are MEN

“Just wait”: Islamic State says it has smuggled 1000s of Muslim jihadis into Europe

Dead toddler’s father wanted to go to Europe to get new teeth!

The West Must Not Appease the Iranian Regime!

As part of the Nuclear deal the Iranian regime will receive over $150 billion in unfrozen funds, senior level Iranian Revolutionary Guards officials and entities who waged terror attacks, assassinating Iranians both inside and outside Iran, imprisoning, torturing, raping and executing thousands of Iranians, will no longer be listed on the EU’s and UN’s terrorism list. In addition, the arms and ballistic missiles embargoes will be lifted.

A few years ago,Iran’s foreign Minister Javad Zarif wrote in his book, “We have a fundamental problem with the West, and especially with America. This is because we are heirs to a global mission, which is tied to our raison d’être … a global mission which is tied to our very reason of being …”

Terrorist regimes use infiltration as a means to achieve their goals; the Iranian regime is no exception. Since Mahmoud Ahmadi Nejad’s first term as Iran’s president, we have experienced how this criminal regime has been long preparing to infiltrate through their lobbies in Western world and their mainstream media.

When we look at the map of the Middle East, we don’t need to be an expert in geopolitics to realize that Iran’s influence has increased over the last few years while the United States’ role has diminished. Islamic Republic of Iran has created over 48 Shiite sleeper cell groups in Iraq under the Quds Forces to take over the country’s army and to spread throughout the Middle East. Now the Islamic revolutionary model is being reproduced in Iraq, Syria and Yemen as well, by setting up those same structures. The “Army,People (Basij), Resistance” formula was never just a mere slogan, it’s an Iranian regime blueprint dating back to the birth of the Islamic Revolution. Islamic Republic of Iran’s global terror campaign, and its subversion of countries throughout and beyond the Middle East, is their ultimate goal to export their Islamic Revolution.

Each week during Friday prayers in Tehran, the regime openly and regularly utters death threats against the United States, Israel, United Kingdom, and their Western allies. Given Iran’s history, it would be wise not to take these threats slightly.

Those who are appeasing the Iran deal and advocating for it must not forget that the Iranian regime is a dictatorial regime with a constitution base on medieval Islamic Sharia law and does not represent the will of the Iranian people—but rather the radical and hidden agenda of its leaders. Iran also executes more people per capita than all other countries. According to the reports from the human rights groups, the human rights situation in Iran has worsened since Rouhani became president and Iran has increased legal restraints and persecutions of dissidents, human rights activists and journalists. The overall situation has worsened; as indicated by the surge in executions.” Citing a rise in executions from 580 in 2012, to 753 in 2014. and over 694 people have been executed by hanging in the last six months, nearly matching the toll for the whole of 2014. According to a report by Amnesty international, Executions in Iran could rise to 1,000 this year.

The West must not be fooled by Iran regime’s manipulative charm. For 36 years, the Islamic regime of Iran has relentlessly pursued a global Islamic mission which was engineered by jihadis Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran’s founding dictator. Khomeini said in his own words, “We will export our revolution to the entire world.” And, as I just explained, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards,and Quds Forces have been resolutely dedicated to that end. Iran’s IRGC commander, Mohammad Ali Ja’afari, clearly stated this goal. He said, “Our Imam did not limit the Islamic Revolution to this country … Our duty is to prepare the way for an Islamic world government.”

In 1994, US President, Bill Clinton said “This is a good deal for the United States. North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. International inspectors will carefully monitor North Korea to make sure it keeps its commitments.” And in 2015, US President, Barack Hussein Obama said: “It’s a good deal – a deal that meets our core objectives, including strict limitations on Iran’s program and cutting off every pathway that Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon.”

In 2006, North Korea detonated its first nuclear device.

In 2015, far from having any interest in challenging the Iranian regime, on the nuclear deal, Iran’s terrorist activities in the region and the human rights violations by Iran, 5+1 with president Obama’s leadership are accommodating and empowering the world’s most dangerous state in the world’s most dangerous region, which would obtain the world’s most dangerous weapons.

We are not advocating for war; we want peace and the rule of law and human rights for Iran which cannot be possible under the Islamic republic of Iran.There is only one alternative: cancel the Nuclear agreement with Iran, apply stronger sanctions on Iran regime and their officials and free Iran from this regime, so the whole world will be a safer place.

Germany: ‘Refugees’ riot, stone police over torn Qur’an, 15 wounded

These people are going to be a marvelous addition to German society.

“Riot over disrespect to Holy Quran left 15 wounded in Germany,” Khaama Press, August 20 2015 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

A riot erupted among asylum seekers at a refugee center in Germany leaving 15 people wounded including Afghans.

The riot reportedly erupted after a refugee tore pages from the Holy Quran prompting anger of some 20 other residents in the refugee center in Suhl city of Thuringen State on Wednesday evening.

Police say the confrontation escalated into a riot and around 100 refugees took part in it.

125 police officers were dispatched to the area to break the brawl but they also came under the attack from refugees and were pelted with sticks and stones.

Four police officers, two badly, and 11 refugees were wounded in the clash.

Seven police vehicles were also damaged during the riot that took around four hours to come under control.

According to the officials, the person who tore pages from the Holy Quran had arrived from Afghanistan. Police took him into custody for his own safety.

In other words, they arrested the one who violated Sharia blasphemy law, not the rioters.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pakistan Muslim leader exhorted Muslims to kill Hindus

UK: Jihadi free to roam streets as interpreters are abandoned to Taliban

U.S. Set to Block Aid to Pakistan for Failing to Crack Down on Terrorist Group

30 Second Video: Kerry – Iran ‘Atomic Bromance’ Explained

Is John Kerry ‘related’ to Mohammed Zrif?

HAVE YOU HAD ENOUGH OF THIS IRAN-KERRY INSANITY YET?

Either Kerry is the biggest buffoon who just had an Iranian “information operation” spun on his head or he is so partial to Iran that he wants them to exert regional dominance in the Middle East, thus clearly threatening Israel.

What will it take for Americans to realize that we MUST dump this Iran nuke deal, get the Iranians back to the negotiating table and require complete dismantling of their key nuke facilities.

Washington, D.C. At today’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing regarding the Obama Administration’s nuclear deal with Iran, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) highlighted the importance of U.S. sanctions as a viable alternative to President Obama’s deal and outlined how, if the deal is implemented, Iran will be in a much stronger position when the deal expires.

“When people vote on this deal in a few weeks, you’re going to live with this for the rest of your life,” Rubio said during the hearing. “In 10 years, in 12 years, when Iran has a nuclear weapon and we can’t target them, people are going to remember this vote that’s coming up and this deal as what laid the groundwork for it, and I keep hearing this notion that there is no other alternative and no other way forward, but I disagree.

“I believe U.S. sanctions are the most important part of all the sanctions,” Rubio continued. “I believe that these banks in Europe, German banks, whatever banks may be, if they were forced to choose between having access to the American economy and access to the Iranian economy, that’s not going to be a hard choice for them.”

A video of Rubio’s remarks and the full exchanges is available here.

Transcript of Senator Rubio’s.

Senator Marco Rubio: “The choice right before us was two things.

“On the one hand was to continue with what we thought was the strategy which is international sanctions that had an impact on Iran’s economy. They continued to make progress in their enrichment capabilities and so forth, but it was a combination of international sanctions and the threat of credible military force, which no one wants to talk about, but that was on the table, and the President has said that, in fact, if it came down to it, the U.S. would do that, if it were necessary.

“Versus what we have now, which is a deal that basically argues, well what this will do is that if they comply with it, it will slow them down, and in 10 years if they want to break out, it buys us 10 years of time, and it avoids, assuming everybody complies with everything.

“Here’s my problem with that analysis. My problem with it is that in 8 to 10 years, which sounds like a long time to all of us here, it’s nothing. Ten years goes very quickly, and that’s if we’re optimistic. In 10 years, Iran will be in a much stronger position. In fact, I think in 10 years they’ll be immune from international pressure compared to where they are today, and here’s why.

“First of all, they are going to use this sanctions relief and the billions of dollars that it frees up, and I know everyone wants to believe they’re going to invest it in hospitals and roads and social services in order to win their next election. I promise you, they’re going to win they’re next election. I don’t think they’re worried about that as much as they are about their need for example, to get to modernize their enrichment capability into a 21st century industrial system.

“It actually falls right in line with the mandate that the Supreme Leader, I believe, gave to the negotiators, which is, ‘Don’t agree to anything that’s irreversible. Go as far as you need to go to get the sanctions removed, but don’t agree to anything that’s irreversible.’

“So they’ll have less centrifuges, but they’ll be better ones and they’ll be modernized, and they’ll retain that infrastructure, which is the hardest part of any nuclear program, is the infrastructure, the hardware that it takes to do this.

“But here’s what else they’re going to do, they’re going to continue to build their conventional capabilities. We don’t think about that enough, but Iran in 10 years will have conventional capabilities, maybe less, that could potentially drive us out of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz because the price of being there will be too high, I mean they can buy Chinese asymmetrical capabilities that allow them to kill ships, add to these fast swift boats things that they’ve been able to come up with that can threaten an aircraft carrier. They’re going to continue to build long range rockets. Why are you building a long range rocket, an ICBM? Are you going to put a man on the moon? No. They’re building it for purposes of targeting the continental United States. And they look at North Korea and say, ‘Yeah the North Koreans have a long range rocket.’ We don’t know where it is going to hit yet because they aren’t very good yet at guidance, but it will hit somewhere, like the West Coast of the United States. That alone has made North Korea immune.

“And they’re going to continue to build up their surrogates in the region, which I would argue already, even now before the sanctions relief has given Iran tremendous leverage over U.S. policy. As an example: Iran has laid out some pretty clear red lines. They are going to hold back Shi’ite militias in Iraq from attacking American troops or going after Americans. They’ll agree to hold them back if, we don’t cross certain red lines they have made very clear.

“What are their red lines? For starters they don’t want to see any U.S. combat troops in Iraq, and if we make any move toward any sort of permanent presence in Iraq in the future, we are going to get attacked by Shi’ite militias at their orders. They don’t want to see us take any concrete steps to remove Assad from power. If they see us moving toward getting Assad out of power, we’re going to get hit by surrogate groups in the region, including Hezbollah and their Shi’ite militia. If we take steps to help put in place an Iraqi government that actually unifies that country and isn’t a puppet of Iran, not to mention one that might actually be hostile toward Iran’s ambitions in the region, they’re going to attack us.

“So they already have leverage over our policy. Now extrapolate that 8 to 10 years from now, when their conventional forces are higher, when these groups are better armed, when Hizballah in a couple of years doesn’t just have rockets, they have guided rockets, guided missiles that don’t just hit somewhere in Israel, they hit exactly what they want to hit.

“So imagine a world in 10 years, where Iran decides, or 8 years, or 12 years, where they just decide, ‘You know what, we’re building a nuclear weapon because we believe Israel has one or because we think someone else is going to threaten us.’

“What can the world do then? Well then reimposing sanctions really won’t be an option at that point because all these companies that are deeply invested in that economy just won’t let their nations or their governments do anything about it. We’ve already seen that in the case of the Europeans.

“But what will the price be of actually going after their systems? It’ll be worse than the price of going after North Korea now. Do we have a credible military option today to target the North Koreans’ program? We do not. We do not because we know that the price of going after the North Korean program through a credible military option, the price of that is Tokyo, the price of that is Seoul, the price of that is Hawaii, they’ll hit us back.

“Well imagine Iran where the price of going after the Iranian program in 10 years if they decide to break out will be Washington, D.C. or New York City, not to mention Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and any number of places in the region that are our allies.

“So my argument is that, in fact, what I think we’ve done here is walk right into the situation they wanted to lay out, they didn’t want a nuclear weapon next week anyway. But we have created a system where in 8 to 10 years they will be, they will have the capability to quickly become, walk into the nuclear weapons club, not sneak in, walk in to the nuclear weapons club with a world class industrial enrichment capability, a much more powerful conventional weapons force capable of actually asymmetrically driving our navy from the region or further out and quite frankly immune from any sort of credible military action because if we attack them the price is going to be a nuclear devastating strike, potentially even on the continental United States.

“So my point is that when people vote on this deal in a few weeks, you’re going to live with this for the rest of your life. In 10 years, in 12 years, when Iran has a nuclear weapon and we can’t target them, people are going to remember this vote that’s coming up and this deal as what laid the groundwork for it, and I keep hearing this notion that there is no other alternative and no other way forward, but I disagree.

“I believe U.S. sanctions are the most important part of all the sanctions. I believe that these banks in Europe, German banks, whatever banks may be, if they were forced to choose between having access to the American economy and access to the Iranian economy, that’s not going to be a hard choice for them.”

Obama Takes the Presidency to a New Low

Recently, President Obama approved what is possibly the worst international deal in United States history.  That agreement gives Iran an unchallenged pathway to produce nuclear weapons.  For years, the islamic regime has blocked United Nations inspectors from conducting impromptu inspections.  Of course, the whole planet is well aware of the tremendous level of state sponsored terrorism the Iranian nation has thrown it’s financial muscle behind.

Yet the president, who was elected to govern on behalf of “We the People” has in fact, bumbled on behalf of every enemy this nation has in the world.   For example, while both China and Russia are embarking enormous military buildups, the Obama administration is overseeing the largest military build-down in U.S. history.  Considering the political conditions around the world at the moment, these are not the times for the faint of heart or a weak military.  In fact, our national security and sovereignty are both at stake.

Whether it is the porous borders, where illegal immigrants are strolling in like they own the place or are committing legions of crimes against Americans and their property, it is occurring with the approval of President Obama, his fellow democrats and rino republicans.  President Obama is also bringing in over sixty thousand American, Christian, Black people and Jewish hating muslims, while refusing to allow Christian refugees from the middle east entry into the United States.  To add insult to injury, the rogue federal is not even allowing local officials, or the sovereign citizens of any town they move the islamic refugees to where they are being housed.

With all of the major problems facing our nation and other countries around the world, it is mind boggling how president Obama is so fixated on forcing African nations to adopt and legalize unnatural sexual practices.

It was refreshing to read in CNS NEWS about how Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta told U.S. President Obama to back off of his mission to promote homosexuality and lesbianism in his country.  He plainly stated that “Kenyans had more pressing concerns to deal with including health, education, and insuring inclusivity of women,” He added “maybe once, like you have overcome some of these challenges, we can begin to look at new ones.”  “But as for now, the fact remains that this [homosexuality] issue is not really an issue that is on the foremost mind of Kenyans, and that is the fact.”

I find it rather insane and pathetic, that Obama is more fixated on forcing African nations into spreading a lifestyle that according to the Centers for Disease Control is more dangerous than cigarette smoking.  He prefers promoting unnatural lifestyles than help them to adopt free market principles, improved farming techniques, and a closer walk with the one who blessed America.

What the White House Occupier does not seem to recognize, (or most likely ignores) is that promoting unnatural lifestyles does not lead to the path of personal improvement, national economic growth, better medical care, victory over the threatening islamic nations, tribes and groups who have vowed to destroy all who won’t bow to allah, etc.

Speaking of equality Obama style.  He has without fail, sought to destroy America through his putrid philosophy of unnatural lifestyles, big government healthcare, and redistribution of wealth from the productive to the idle, muslim resettlements in America and much more.  Oh and I cannot forget his mentally destructive droning on about he and all blacks in America are victims of racism.

I marvel at how with a straight face, Obama cab travel to (some believe his native homeland) and as president of what was the greatest nation in the history of humankind complain of being treated differently because of his race.  I have to ask, to which race is he referring,? Because he is both, black and white, and president for goodness sakes.

President Obama has been a textbook case on how not to govern, parent, or lead in any capacity.  Obama has consistently governed from behind or in other ways to negatively impact our republic, such as only forcing polices upon society that result in negative outcomes.  Thus our republic turned mob-ruled democracy is more vulnerable economically, morally, ethically, spiritually, militarily, educationally, etc. than at any time throughout our nation’s history.

I find it ironic how Mr. Obama and the first lady like to describe /America as a racist nation, but yet they and many like them are openly bigoted and discriminatory against everything that is good about the United States and even God who shed his grace upon her.

For you who are so inclined, it is 2 Chronicles 7:14 time.

Stop Sharia Law Before it is Too Late

The brutality of shari’ah law embraces quite a number of laws and punishments that are contrary to long-held western ideas of justice and dignity of the human person.  Nonetheless, the foundation for shari’ah in the west is already being laid and solidified.   The shari’ah concept is totally incompatible with the basic concept of the United States citizenship and national loyalty and is fundamentally inconsistent with United States laws and the constitutional guarantees inherent in them.

This can easily be seen in comparing the fundamental rights guaranteed to United States sovereign citizens with very limited human rights recognized by shari’ah states.  The United States and the west, at large, define human rights broadly and extend them to all human beings regardless of sex, religion, or creed.  In stark brutal contrast, shai’ah defines human rights narrowly and limits them to muslims and qualifies them to be in complete conformity with shari’ah.

Specifically, the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution set forth a non-exhaustive list of rights and liberties that are guaranteed to all Americans in what is known as the Bill of Rights.  Among these are the freedoms of speech and religion, the right to due process of law, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment.

Similarly, the Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the United Nations famous list of rights, exhibits a similar theme, beginning with an unequivocal acknowledgment of “the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family.  The declaration goes on to emulate, inter alia, the rights to “Life, Liberty, and Security, of person,” freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; and rights to effective remedies under the law, and equal treatment or punishment; and rights to effective remedies under the law, and equal protection under the law.

These rights, liberties, and freedoms are guaranteed to all persons of all races, ethnicities, religions, and sexes simply by virtue of a person’s status as a human being who is endowed with “inherent dignity” and “inalienable rights.”

All fifty seven member states of the organization of the Islamic conference (OIC), however, disregard the aforementioned definition of human rights, which does not declare human rights to be “inherent” or “inalienable.”  The Cairo declaration on human rights, which was submitted by the OIC on behalf of it’s member states to the world conference on human rights in 1993, affirms only some human rights, which are qualified both in scope and application.  The Cairo declaration declares that all… “rights and freedoms are subject to the Islamic shari’ah and that the “Islamic shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any [human rights].  As such, calling the Cairo declaration on human rights is a misnomer, for it does not declare the rights of humans at all, but rather sets forth the rights of only some humans or more specifically, humans who adhere to islam.  HMMPH!

This fundamental difference in understanding human rights manifests itself explicitly in the incompatibility of the civil and criminal laws of shari’ah with those of the United States.  Thus it is imperative that Americans are made abundantly clear about the crystal clear, fundamental differences between the Christian inspired Constitution along with the Bill of Rights and the dictates and the numerous bigoted aspects of shari’ah law.

America, time is fast running out for the possibility of restoring our great, but very troubled republic turned mob ruled democracy.  The problems are massive, to say the very least, but not insurmountable.  That is if only we are willing to once again adopt and adhere to the blessed principles that helped make America the one time envy of the world.

Many thanks to the American Center for Law and Justice for their assistance