Dr. Ben Carson: “I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country”

/in , , , , , , /by

Bravo. Islamic law infringes upon the freedom of speech, forbidding criticism of Islam. Islamic law denies equality of rights to women. Islamic law denies equality of rights to non-Muslims. If a Muslim renounced all this, he or she could be an effective Constitutional ruler, but in today’s politically correct climate, no one is even likely to ask for such a renunciation. Instead, no one even acknowledges that these really are elements of Islamic law. Carson is right, and deserves the gratitude of every free American for refusing to back down before the authoritarian, thuggish forces that work so actively to demonize and marginalize anyone and everyone who speaks honestly about Islam, Sharia, and the jihad threat.

“Carson doubles down on no Muslims in the White House,” by Jonathan Easley, The Hill, September 20, 2015:

Republican presidential hopeful Ben Carson is standing by his view that a Muslim should not be president of the United States, telling The Hill in an interview on Sunday that whoever takes the White House should be “sworn in on a stack of Bibles, not a Koran.”

Carson ignited a media firestorm in a Sunday morning interview with Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press,” in which he said he “would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.”

“I absolutely would not agree with that,” Carson said.

In an interview with The Hill, Carson opened up about why he believes a Muslim would be unfit to serve as commander in chief.

“I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country,” Carson said, referencing the Islamic law derived from the Koran and traditions of Islam. “Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.”

Carson said that the only exception he’d make would be if the Muslim running for office “publicly rejected all the tenants of Sharia and lived a life consistent with that.”

“Then I wouldn’t have any problem,” he said.

However, on several occasions Carson mentioned “Taqiyya,” a practice in the Shia Islam denomination in which a Muslim can mislead nonbelievers about the nature of their faith to avoid religious persecution.

“Taqiyya is a component of Shia that allows, and even encourages you to lie to achieve your goals,” Carson said.

Pushing back at the media firestorm over his remarks, Carson sought to frame himself as one of the few candidates running for president willing to tell hard truths.

“We are a different kind of nation,” Carson said. “Part of why we rose so quickly is because we wouldn’t allow our values or principles to be supplanted because we were going to be politically correct. … Part of the problem today is that we’re so busy trying to be politically correct, that we lose all perspective.”

Carson told The Hill that the question of a Muslim president is largely “irrelevant” because no Muslims are running in 2016. He said the question, which Todd is posing to all of the Republican presidential hopefuls who go on his show, “may well have been” gotcha journalism meant to trip the candidates up.

However, he acknowledged the question “served a useful purpose by providing the opportunity to talk about what Sharia is and what their goals are.”

“So often we get into these irrelevant things, because obviously if a Muslim was running for president, there would be a lot more education about Sharia, about Taqiyya,” Carson said….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Nigeria: Islamic State murder 85 in series of jihad bombings

Naked pro-“Palestinian” protesters apologize: “This is not an attack on Islam, it is our way of protesting”

A letter to the U.S. Congress

/in , , , , /by

The Hon. James M. Inhofe
205 Russell Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510

The Hon. James Lankford
316 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510

The Hon. Markwayne Mullin
1113 Longworth House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515

Gentlemen:

As a concerned constituent, I would like to express my concern over the apparent unconcern of the Congress for what is perhaps the greatest danger our nation has ever faced.  I refer, of course, to the dangers posed by the ever-increasing “invasion” of radical Islamists into our country.

Although there are approximately 1.4 billion Muslims on Earth, we are told that we should not be overly concerned because only about 5% of them are radicalized, hell-bent on killing as many non-Muslims… me and you and our families… as possible.  Of course, 5% of 1.4 billion comes to roughly 70 million terrorists and suicide bombers.  During World War II, the combined military forces of Germany, Japan, and Italy numbered only 34.1 million combatants.

In the years immediately following World War II, our principal internal security threat came from the international communist conspiracy, represented domestically by the Communist Party, USA.  It was the stated purpose of the communist conspiracy to seek the destruction of our constitutional republic through any means necessary, including force and violence.  In response, the U.S. Congress took appropriate steps to eradicate the clear and present danger posed by the communist conspiracy through passage of the Communist Control Act of 1954, outlawing communism in the United States.

But now, in the closing years of the 20th century and the early years of the 21st century, we find ourselves endangered internally by an enemy far more numerous and far more deadly than was posed by the presence of communists in our midst.  Yet, it appears as if the Congress prefers to take the politically correct approach to radical Islam, treating radical Islamists as if they are just another religious sect with First Amendment rights and privileges.

Islam is not a “religious denomination” in the generally accepted sense of the term.  Instead, it is a complete social, economic, legal, political, and military entity with a religious component.  As such, it does not merit First Amendment protections under the U.S. Constitution, and it cannot be allowed to impose itself as a protected political and religious institution within our borders.

As we see endless streams of Muslim “asylum seekers” crossing the Mediterranean from North Africa into Italy and Spain, and as we see hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Muslims from Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and other Middle Eastern nations flooding across Eurasia, overrunning police and military forces of the invaded countries on their way to sanctuary in Western Europe, we know that we are witnessing the greatest human migration in history… a transmigration of cultures that is certain to devour Christianity, Judaism, and the richness of Western culture.  Unless we take steps to return the waves of Islamists, who kill and rape their way across civilized nations, to their own section of the Earth, none of what we have known as western civilization will exist a decade or two from now.  Just imagine the world that our children and grandchildren will inherit if we fail to take appropriate action now, while we still can.

What I suggest is that the Congress rewrite sections of the Communist Control Act of 1954, a statute that has not been overturned by the courts and is still in force, to read as follows:

SEC. 1. PURPOSE.  The Congress hereby finds and declares that certain organizations exist within our borders which, although purporting to be political or religious in nature, are in fact instrumentalities of foreign political or religious entities or ideologies whose purpose it is to overthrow the Government of the United States by any available means, including force and violence.  Such organizations operate as authoritarian dictatorships within our borders, demanding for themselves the rights and privileges generally accorded to all political parties and religious denominations, but denying to all others the liberties guaranteed to them by the U.S. Constitution. 

SEC. 2. PROSCRIBED ORGANIZATIONS.  Any political or religious organization as described herein, or any successors or affiliates of such organizations, regardless of the assumed name, whose object or purpose it is to overthrow the government of the United States, or to force the political or religious conversion of its people by force or violence, or threats thereof, are not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or its political subdivisions; and whatever rights, privileges, and immunities heretofore granted to said religious or political organizations, or any subsidiary or affiliate organizations, by reason of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, are hereby rescinded:  Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as amending the Internal Security Act of 1950, as amended.

My question is this:  If we could find the courage in 1954 to outlaw an ideology that sought only to convert us through political subversion, why can we not find the courage in 2015 to outlaw a foreign ideology that offers us only a choice between religious subservience and death… the ultimate Hobson’s Choice.  I would appreciate having your specific reactions to my concerns.  I would prefer not to have generic boilerplate responses prepared by staff members.

Respectfully,

Paul R. Hollrah

Germany: Muslim Asylum Seeker Brags that He Killed for the Islamic State

/in , , , , /by

Here is the brief story at the Daily Mail:

Police are investigating whether an asylum seeker living in Germany fought for Islamic State, it has been reported.

The Syrian man, who lives in a shelter in the north-east region of Brandenburg, allegedly told other refugees he had been a member of ISIS.

German newspaper Welt am Sonntag, reported that the man was filmed boasting about his blood-thirsty past.

Investigators are now trying to determine whether the Syrian was a member of ISIS, the newspaper reported.

Germany’s Federal Criminal Police Office said the suspect was filmed by other refugees boasting about having killed for the terrorist group.

The Guardian reported overnight that European leaders will gather on Wednesday to try to figure out what the h*** they are going to do about the invasion. (not their words!)

See our extensive archive on the ‘Invasion of Europe’ going back years, here.  Even casual observers have seen this crisis building for a long time and the chickens in the EU leadership did nothing to get in front of it.

Our archive on Germany is here.  Previous posts on Merkel are here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Compassion As A Weapon: Politicizing The Syrian Refugee Crisis

Hillary says U.S. should admit 65,000 Syrians in coming year

House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul introduces bill to restrain Obama on Syrian refugee resettlement

Kerry now says 85,000 total refugees for FY2016; Hillary still wants 65,000 Syrian Muslims

Ben Carson says a Muslim should not be President of the U.S.; CAIR comes out with both barrels

Anne Richard, Asst. Sec. of State: we want to ramp-up the Syrian numbers and “streamline” security screening

Canada to take 10,000 Syrian refugees, but not necessarily UN-chosen ones!

John Kerry: U.S. to accept 85,000 Muslim refugees in 2016, 100,000 in 2017

/in , , , , , /by

What could possibly go wrong? Last February the Islamic State said it would soon flood Europe with as many as 500,000 refugees. But they couldn’t actually be doing it now, could they? Inconceivable! And the Lebanese Education Minister recently said that there were 20,000 jihadis among the refugees in camps in his country. But they couldn’t be heading to Europe, could they? Inconceivable! The 80% of migrants who claim to be fleeing the war in Syria but aren’t from Syria at all couldn’t have hijrah or jihad on their minds, could they? Inconceivable!

“US to Accept 85,000 Refugees in 2016, 100,000 in 2017, Kerry Says,” by Ken Dilanian, Associated Press, September 20, 2015:

Trying to address the Syrian refugee crisis, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry announced Sunday that the United States would significantly increase the number of worldwide refugees it takes in over the next two years, though not by nearly the amount many activists and former officials have urged.

The U.S. will accept 85,000 refugees from around the world next year, up from 70,000, and that total would rise to 100,000 in 2017, Kerry said at news conference with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier after the two discussed the mass migration of Syrians fleeing their civil war.

Many, though not all, of the additional refugees would be Syrian, American officials have said. Others would come from strife-torn areas of Africa. The White House had previously announced it intended to take in 10,000 additional Syrian refugees over the next year.

Asked why the U.S. couldn’t take more, Kerry cited post-Sept. 11 screening requirements and a lack of money made available by Congress. “We’re doing what we know we can manage immediately,” he said.

The migrants would be referred by the U.N. refugee agency, screened by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and resettled around the U.S.

“This step is in keeping with America’s best tradition as a land of second chances and a beacon of hope,” Kerry said. Kerry also met with some refugee families on the wooded, lakeside resort-style campus of the foreign ministry’s education center outside Berlin.

Congressional approval is not required for the expansion of resettlement slots, though Congress would have to appropriate money to pay for the additional effort. Some Republican lawmakers have expressed concerns that Islamic State militants could seek to slip into Europe or the U.S. posing as migrants….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Compassion As A Weapon: Politicizing The Syrian Refugee Crisis

Carson says Muslim shouldn’t be President; Hamas-linked CAIR demands he withdraw

Eiffel Tower closed to visitors after terror suspect with “large rucksack” climbs it

Trump: Protecting Our Second Amendment Rights Will Make America Great Again

/in , , , , , /by

Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump released his position on the Second Amendment. Trump’s policy states in part:

The Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all law-abiding Americans. The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away.

[ … ]

We need to get serious about prosecuting violent criminals. The Obama administration’s record on that is abysmal. Violent crime in cities like Baltimore, Chicago and many others is out of control. Drug dealers and gang members are given a slap on the wrist and turned loose on the street. This needs to stop.

[ … ]

All of the tragic mass murders that occurred in the past several years have something in common – there were red flags that were ignored. We can’t allow that to continue.

[ … ]

Gun and magazine bans are a total failure. That’s been proven every time it’s been tried.

[ … ]

The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states.

[ … ]

Banning our military from carrying firearms on bases and at recruiting centers is ridiculous. We train our military how to safely and responsibly use firearms, but our current policies leave them defenseless.

To read Donald Trump’s full policy on the Second Amendment click here.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Third Time’s the Charm: Federal Appeals Court Voids Provisions of D.C. Gun Control in Heller III

Congressman Sam Johnson Introduces Bill to Protect Social Security Recipients From the Obama Administration’s Most Ambitious (and Outrageous) Gun Grab to Date

CNN Poll Offers Bad News for Gun Controllers, Anti-gun Candidates

Martin O’Malley: I’m More Anti-Gun Than Hillary!

Latest Gun Control Proposal Doesn’t Pass Constitutional Muster

Term Limits Convention Supporters Go Back to the Future

/in , , , /by

“As in 1913, the goal of the Term Limits Convention campaign today is to impose on Congress members an amendment they refuse to enact themselves.”

Once upon a time in America, there was an election reform that was monstrously popular with both parties and every nearly demographic. While politicians grandstanded on the issue from time to time, Congress would never enact the reform because it would affect their own personal power and position directly. As popular as the reform was, it could never get out of committee.

Frustrated, citizens utilized a provision of the U.S. Constitution – Article V – that says that if two-thirds of the states call for a convention for the purpose of proposing a constitutional amendment, Congress ‘shall’ call such a convention. And the amendment it proposes is to be sent back for ratification by three-quarters of the states.

State after state passed official calls or ‘applications’ for the convention. When the number of calls approached the requisite number for the convention, Congress saw the writing on the wall and finally passed an amendment itself and sent it to the states for ratification. A year later, the popular election reform was the law of the land.

The year was 1913 and the reform was the direct election of Senators, the campaign for the 17th Amendment.  But in light of a new national campaign, this story may be retold in the future as how citizens finally imposed term limits on the U.S. Congress.

Earlier this month, U.S. Term Limits sent a message to supporters offering its assistance and direction in shepherding term limits convention applications through 34 state legislatures.  The goal of the Term Limits Convention campaign is to impose on Congress members the term limits they refuse to enact themselves. While the full list of 2016 target states has not yet been released, Florida is on the list.

The parallels between the two campaigns are uncanny, and there is a good reason for it. The Founders knew there would be times when the self-interest of Congress would clash directly with that of citizens and wisely gave the people and the states an end run around Congress in such situations.  If Congress had refused to act in 1913, the states would have had their convention and the people’s will imposed on Congress.  It was the convention that gave people the leverage.

It is precisely for cases such as term limits that the Article V convention route was added to the U.S. Constitution.

While there is a plausible case to be made on the merits against the direct election of senators, there is no question the process by which it was approved was a success of the U.S. constitutional machinery and the wisdom of its authors.

Can this method be used successfully to add Congressional term limits to the U.S. Constitution? Time will tell, but there are compelling reasons to believe the answer is ‘yes.’

  • Only issues of overwhelming bipartisan popularity can make it through the Article V gauntlet. Because of the high number of states needed for calling the convention (34) and ratification (38), radical or sectarian amendments cannot survive this process.  On the other hand, term limits fit the bill perfectly:  Recently polling show that 75% of Americans support term limits, including large majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents. These majorities have been consistent since polling on the issue started in the 1950s.
  • The call for a convention is simply a bill passed by legislatures. The term limits in question will not apply to the politicians voting on the bill, which is the self-interest problem faced in the U.S. Congress. In fact, Congressional term limits will actually create open seats and opportunities for state legislators – many of which are already term limited!
  • State legislators have other reasons to support the term limits convention bills: they are enormously popular with voters and they don’t cost any money.

If any issue can succeed via the convention route, it is term limits. Citizens have recently gathered together to launch the campaign and legislative sponsors are currently being sought for sponsors in several first-year target states.

The unanswered question is, will a sufficient number of citizens get engaged – contacting their legislators, sharing the term limits info with other activists, writing the checks – to sustain the effort until state number 34 makes the call?

If they do, Congressional term limits will be the law of the land in the United States.

Muslim refugees eligible for over $11,000 in social services benefits for years

/in , , , , , , /by

I just came across this handy breakdown of which social services refugees can access immediately upon arrival in the U.S.  Note that it does not show food stamps or subsidized housing (both available to refugees for years), or the cost of educating the children.

At the top you will see that each refugee gets $1850 as a one time payment from the U.S. Department of State (a family of 6 would receive $11,100). However, the contracting (non-profit) agency keeps about $750 of each refugee’s allotment for its own overhead.

But, that is not all the contractor receives, most get tens of thousands of federal dollars to run myriad other programs through their offices including English language lessons, employment counseling, and even are granted federal dollars to develop community gardens for their refugee clients.

See also:  Jeff Sessions remarks that 90% of Middle Eastern refugees on welfare, here.

All non-profit groups are required to file Form 990’s with the IRS and must make them available to anyone who asks.  You should not be told that you must do a Freedom of Information Act request to get their financials!

The diagram can be seen more clearly here in enlarged form: http://www.usccb.org/about/resettlement-services/upload/Refugee-Assistance-2.pdf

Screenshot (5)RELATED ARTICLES:

Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX): “We are crazy to be inviting the problems of the Middle East into the United States”

Syrian refugees being resettled in “safe” Baltimore

No discussion of refugee crisis at CNN debate; Carly leaves me cold

Florida: Kids Get School Supplies from Islamic Groups Associated with Terrorism

GOP Debate: Winners and Losers on National Security by Ryan Mauro

/in , , , , /by

American voters’ concern about Islamist extremism is at the highest level since 2002, with 66% of Republicans, 56% of Independents and 48% of Democrats describing it as a “critical threat.” National security is a major issue that received significant attention at last night’s Republican presidential debate.

The following is Clarion Project National Security Analyst Ryan Mauro’s compilation of the candidates’ expressed stances on fighting Islamist extremism at the debate and his personal assessment of the contest’s winners and losers among national security voters.

Winners

Businesswoman Carly Fiorina

Carly Fiorina is widely considered the biggest winner of the debate overall. Her performance included details on national security policy.

She criticized rivals who oppose the nuclear deal with Iran without presenting a broader strategy. She said she’d inform Iran that the regime would be prevented from moving money through the global financial system until it agrees to anytime-anywhere inspections.

Fiorina said the U.S. should not negotiate with Russia because it is on the side of Iran. She said she’d provide intelligence to Egypt and armaments to Jordan to fight the Islamic State, in addition to arming the Kurds.

She advocated a military buildup that includes increasing the 6thFleet, military exercises in the Baltic States, installing anti-ballistic missile systems in Poland, modernizing all three legs of the nuclear triad, increasing the Navy to 300-350 ships and adding 50 Army brigades and 36 Marine battalions.

Fiorina is currently in 8th place in an average of national polls with 3 percent. She is in 6th place in Iowa (5%), 4th place in New Hampshire (8%) and 6th place in South Carolina (4%).

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham

Graham is the winner of the undercard debate that featured the bottom four candidates and virtually every answer of his related to national security. Of all the candidates, he was the most impressive on dealing with the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL). He explicitly said he is running for president to “destroy radical Islam.” Graham said he would “rip the caliphate up by its roots” and “will kill every one of these [ISIS] bastards we can find.”

Graham’s standout moment was challenging every candidate to state whether they support increasing troop levels in Iraq from 3,500 to 10,000 to fight the Islamic State, asserting that anyone who refuses to do so lacks the seriousness to be commander-in-chief. Graham’s overall plan calls for increasing U.S. troop levels to 20,000, split between Iraq and Syria.

He argued that the Islamic State grew in Syria and then propelled into Iraq because the Obama Administration rejected his recommendation that the U.S. military establish a no-fly zone in Syria and support the Free Syrian Army rebel force before it became too late.

Graham said there is no one left to train inside Syria, so the only option is a U.S.-backed regional army that includes Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and others. He said the only solution to the refugee crisis is the removal of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.

He pointed out that he’s the only candidate who has served in the military (he was in the Air Force for 33 years). Graham has spent 140 days on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan over the course of 35 trips to those countries.

Graham is currently in 14th place nationally (0.3%). He is in 14thplace in Iowa (0.3%); 12th place in New Hampshire (0.8%) and 7thplace in South Carolina (4%).

Florida Senator Marco Rubio

Rubio gave the most detailed and articulate answers about foreign policy during the debate. He argued for a more interventionist U.S. policy that includes supporting democratic activists, such as by meeting with opponents of Putin in Russia.

He argued that the Syrian revolution began as a popular uprising and the Islamist terrorist presence could have been minimized if the U.S. had armed moderate rebels in the beginning of the conflict.

Rubio said that the Russian military movement into Syria is part of an overall strategy to “destroy NATO,” save the Syrian dictatorship and convince countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia to ditch the U.S. for Russia.

He is currently in 5th place nationally (5%). He is in 5th place in Iowa (5%); 8th place in New Hampshire (3%) and 5th place in South Carolina (4%).

Rubio explained that he opposed giving President Obama authority to launch airstrikes on the Syrian regime after it used chemical weapons because the plan involved “pinprick” airstrikes. He said that he would only support military action that has victory as an objective.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie

Christie struck a chord when he spoke about his experience on 9/11 and prosecuting terrorists after the attack when he was the U.S. Attorney for the state of New Jersey. He defended the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks when Carson’s opposition was brought up. He also pledged not to have deals with or meet with leaders like those in Iran who chant “Death to America.”

He is currently in 11th place nationally (2%). He is in 11th place in Iowa (2%), 9th place in New Hampshire (3%) and 12th place in South Carolina (2%).

Losers

Businessman Donald Trump

Trump failed to show any grasp on foreign policy or to outline a strategy towards Islamist extremists when pressed. When he was asked about an embarrassing interview where he appeared not to know what the Iran-linked Al-Quds Force are and the names of prominent terrorist leaders, he simply stated that he’d hire a strong team that would keep him informed on national security.

He boasted of opposing the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein. He said the U.S. should stay out of the Syrian civil war and criticized President Obama for declaring that the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons would be an intolerable “red line.” Trump said that Rubio, Paul and Cruz should have supported President Obama’s request for authority to militarily enforce the “red line.”

Trump also expressed confidence that he could work well with Russian President Putin. Fiorina, on the other hand, said the U.S. should not negotiate with Russia.

He is currently in 1st place nationally (31%). He is in 1st place in Iowa (28%), 1st place in New Hampshire (30%) and 1st place in South Carolina (34%).

Dr. Ben Carson

Carson did not display an impressive knowledge of foreign affairs and national security. Serious damage may have been done when the moderator asked about his opposition to the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks. Carson explained that he told President Bush to focus instead on energy independence, which Christie politely took him to task for.

Carson also made sure to point out that he opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

He is currently in 2nd place nationally (20%). He is in 2nd place in Iowa (23%), 2nd place in New Hampshire (15%) and 2nd place in South Carolina (19%).

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul

Paul repeatedly stated his anti-interventionist view and said that U.S. military operations often backfire. A new poll shows that 69% of Republicans, 67% of Democrats and 57% of Independents favor having America active abroad.

Paul boasted that he “made a career” out of opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq and argued that the U.S. should not topple secular dictators because they are replaced by radical Islamic forces. Paul and Trump were the only candidates to express opposition to a policy of overthrowing Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. He also said that U.S. backing of Syrian rebels would mean arming enemies of America.

He said it is “absurd” to immediately scrap the nuclear deal with Iran unless the regime violates it. He spoke in favor of continued diplomacy with Iran and Russia, pointing out that President Reagan met with the leaders of the Soviet Union.

Paul also said he opposes using U.S. ground forces in Iraq and Syria against the Islamic State, but supports continued airstrikes and arming Kurds.

He is currently in 7th place nationally (3%). He is in 9th place in Iowa (4%), 7th place in New Hampshire (5%) and 11th place in South Carolina (2%).

Ohio Governor John Kasich

Kasich damaged his chances by refusing to say that he’d scrap the nuclear deal with Iran. He argued that the U.S. should move in coordination with allies and not withdraw from the agreement unilaterally. He said that the U.S. should sanction Iran if they violate the deal or sponsor terrorism. Rand Paul likewise said maintenance of the agreement would depend upon Iranian compliance.

He was also twice criticized by Graham during the undercard debate for supporting the closure of some U.S. military bases. Graham countered that he’d increase the number of bases.

He is currently in 10th place nationally (3%). He is in 10th place in Iowa (3%), 3rd place in New Hampshire (10%) and 8th place in South Carolina (4%).

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush

Bush criticized rivals who focused on their pledges to scrap the nuclear deal with Iran. He would not commit to doing so and said that the discussion needs to be about an Iran strategy rather than a strategy to tear up the deal.

Bush encouraged viewers to review his 9-point plan for fighting the Islamic State and the Syrian regime.

He is currently in 3rd place nationally (8%). He is in 4th place in Iowa (5%), 5th place in New Hampshire (8%) and 3rd place in South Carolina (7%).

Other Candidates

Texas Senator Ted Cruz

Cruz’s standout moment was when he promised to “rip to shreds” the “catastrophic” nuclear deal with Iran.

Cruz said that he opposed giving President Obama authority for airstrikes on the Syrian regime in response to its use of chemical weapons because vital national security interests were not at stake. He said that the administration could not answer his questions about how Syrian weapons of mass destruction would be prevented from falling into the hands of the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda.

He is currently in 4th place nationally (7%). He is in 3rd place in Iowa (8%), 6th place in New Hampshire (6%) and 4th place in South Carolina (6%).

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee

Huckabee spoke passionately against the nuclear deal with Iran and said every candidate should announce that, if elected, he or she will not honor it and, as president, will “destroy” it.

He is currently in 6th place nationally (5%). He is in 8th place in Iowa (4%), 11th place in New Hampshire (1%) and 10th place in South Carolina (3%).

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal

Jindal’s standout moment was when he said that Muslim leaders must move beyond generic condemnations of terrorism and condemn terrorists by name. He called on Muslim leaders to preach that these terrorists do not qualify as “martyrs” and are destined for hell.

Jindal said that U.S. policy should be to force Syrian dictator Bashar Assad out of power.

He is currently in 13th place nationally (1%). He is in 11th place in Iowa (3%), 14th place in New Hampshire (0.3%) and 13th place in South Carolina (1%).

Former New York Governor George Pataki

Pataki said he would immediately scrap the nuclear deal with Iran and provide Israel with Massive Ordinance Penetrators (MOPs). However, he may have damaged himself by refusing to endorse Santorum’s call to target Iranian nuclear scientists. He also gave a vague answer about how he’d fight the Islamic State and expressed disagreement with Graham’s plan for a ground offensive with U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria.

He is currently in 15th place nationally with less than a single percent of support. He is in 15th place in Iowa with less than one percent, 13th place in New Hampshire (0.3%) and in 15th place in South Carolina with less than one percent.

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum

Santorum boasted that he authored legislation to sanction Iran and Syria when he was in the Senate. The moderator mentioned his past declaration that the U.S. should target Iranian nuclear scientists, which George Pataki refused to endorse.

He described the Iranian regime as an “apocalyptic death cult” and claimed that two-thirds of Iraqi and Iranian Shiites believe that the end of the world will happen in their lifetime. Santorum was making the point that the Iranian regime exports its radical ideology.

Santorum said he supports increasing U.S. troop levels in Iraq to 10,000 to fight against the Islamic State and that he’d support Lindsey Graham’s proposal for 20,000 troops if necessary. He stated that the legitimacy of the caliphate is based on its holding of territory.

He is currently in 12th place nationally (1%). He is in 12th place in Iowa (2%) and in 15th place in both New Hampshire and South Carolina with less than one percent.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker

Walker’s comments on foreign policy focused on criticizing the nuclear deal with Iran, which he promised to scrap during his first day in office.

He is currently in 9th place nationally (3%). He is in 7th place in Iowa (4%), 10th place in New Hampshire (3%) and 9th place in South Carolina (3%).

Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore

Gilmore failed to make the cut for the debate because he scores less than 1% in national polls. He registers less than a single percent in each of the three early states.

ABOUT RYAN MAURO

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Scientist, Activist, Beauty Queen – Meet Fabiola al-Ibrahim

Getting Personal: The Ayatollah’s Agitprop Video Against the US

Danish Teen Murders Own Mother After ISIS Radicalization

Keep the Beard or Lose Your Head: New Draconian ISIS Rules

EXPOSED: The U.S. Muslim Brotherhood “political party” dedicated to civilizational jihad

/in , , , , /by

The U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s stated goal in America is to “destroy the Western civilization from within.” Star-Spangled Shariah: The Rise of America’s First Muslim Brotherhood Party shows the newest weapon in their arsenal for doing so – a self-described “political Party” called the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO). This new monograph “connects the dots” between the Brotherhood’s secret plan to impose Shariah here and the insidious use it intends to make of our democratic political system to that end.

The USCMO understands that in order for it to succeed, the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood must be galvanized to the execution of the “Civilization-Jihadist Process” – a term taken from a key 1991 Brotherhood document, An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America, submitted as evidence by the Justice Department in the landmark 2008 U.S. v Holy Land Foundation, et al. HAMAS terror funding trial:

“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers, so that is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” 

By its nature, the object of such a stealthy form of jihad is to ensure that the target community remains unaware of the extent of the threat until it is too late. It is our purpose with this volume and the other monographs of the Center’s Civilization Jihad Reader Series to raise the alarm and to engage the American people and their elected representatives in countering this threat while there is still time.

Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney said of the new Civilization Jihad Reader:

The Muslim Brotherhood agenda for the United States demonstrably seeks through subversive infiltration of American institutions the triumph of shariah. We are now on notice that U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations is simply the leading edge of the jihadist movement in this country. While the USCMO seeks to cloak itself in red, white, and blue, it is only for the purpose of accomplishing what can aptly be described as “Star Spangled Shariah.”

The Center for Security Policy/Secure Freedom is proud to present this monograph as a superb addition to its Civilization Jihad Reader Series .  Star-Spangled Shariah: The Rise of America’s First Muslim Brotherhood Party is available for purchase in kindle and paperback format on Amazon.com.

Click here for a full PDF of the newly released monograph.

spangled2

About The Center for Security Policy

The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public. For more information visit www.securefreedom.org

Is Pope Francis coming to U.S. to lecture Donald Trump on immigration?

/in , , , , /by

It sure sounds like it!  How dare he! And, who invited him to insert himself into our political system?

Oh, no surprise no surprise John Boehner*** invited him!

Previously we learned that Democrats are going to use the Pope’s visit to advance their goal of admitting 100,000 Syrians to the U.S. in the next year!

Is Boehner working for Obama and the Democrats (just asking!)?

Citizens concerned about saving Western Civilization should be out in New York and Washington, DC protesting the message the Pope, we are told, will be spewing!   According to the editor of a Catholic magazine he may even quote that historically inaccurate Emma Lazarus poem to guilt-trip you.  Please spare us that lecture!

In 2013, Pope Francis helped fuel the invasion of Europe by welcoming illegal aliens to the island of Lampedusa.

If you can’t be out with a protest sign next week, every Catholic who disagrees with this Pope on immigration should pen a letter to your local paper that begins with:

This Pope does not speak for me!

This is the news featured at Drudge earlier this morning!

And the church wonders why so many of us have left it!

From the Financial Times:

When Pope Francis makes his maiden visit to the US next week, he will accomplish something that has eluded the 2016 presidential contenders — overshadowing Donald Trump, the front runner for the Republican nomination.

US television networks ​will provide wall-to-wall coverage of the visit, which will include the first speech by a Pope to Congress. [Thanks John Boehner!—ed] But while the pontiff will steal some of Mr Trump’s media thunder, he is also expected to wade into ​a debate about immigration — an issue that has helped propel the brash real estate magnate to the front of the Republican pack.

Trump at the border

Since losing the 2012 election, party leaders have talked about the need to appeal to Hispanics, who are the fastest growing segment of the US electorate. But Mr Trump has upended that plan by campaigning against illegal Mexican immigrants, some of whom he has called “rapists”, and reopening a polarizing debate that the Republicans ​had ​hoped to avoid in 2016.

Vatican officials say Pope Francis will focus heavily on immigration during his visit, which would insert him into the middle of presidential politics and could unsettle conservatives even more than his critiques of capitalism and environmentalist rhetoric.

“The Pope obviously has a very soft spot in his heart for immigrants,” said one Holy See insider. “He won’t say, ‘open all borders’, but there’s no two ways about it, he will say, ‘let’s give our immigrant brothers and sisters a fair chance’.” [So, if not all borders, how many, whose borders, and how wide?  They will never answer those questions.—ed]

Give me a break!  Emma Lazurus blah! blah! blah!

Robert Mickens, the Rome-based editor-in-chief of Global Pulse, the Catholic magazine, said that concern for migrants had been “one of the central themes” of Pope Francis’ social teaching. “He doesn’t need to scold the lawmakers but I think he will challenge them not to abandon America’s long history of welcoming immigrants,” Mr Mickens said.

“I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the Pope were to quote those evocative line’s from Emma Lazarus’s poem that adorns the Statue of Liberty — ‘give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore’.”

There is more if you can stand it, click here. (Update:  Looks like the Financial Times may only let you in one time, but its o.k. we snipped the important part)

And, one more thing!  The Pope has made no appeal to put the persecuted Syrian Christians ahead of Sunni Muslims for protection by western countries.  Correct me if I am wrong!

Here, Hungarian Bishop tells Pope he is wrong on Syrians arriving in Europe, calls them invaders.

***Is Boehner keeping the lid on the House Judiciary Committee on the Syrian refugee question until after the Pope leaves?  Hmm!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Vatican Welcomes Iran Deal, Pressures Israel to Give Up Nukes

HuffPo poll: Only 27% of respondents think we have any responsibility to take in Syrians

Saudi Arabia claims it has taken in 2.5 million Syrian refugees — Prove it!

/in , , , , , /by

No they haven’t taken refugees.  They may have tens of thousands of foreign workers there on a temporary basis, but they are not resettling any ‘refugees’ on a permanent basis.  And, I doubt the number of Syrians is in the millions.

Go here and here to see how this controversy began.  Where is the UN High Commissioner for Refugees confirming or denying these claims?

Here is Alarabia:

Saudi Arabia’s King Salman on Monday chaired a cabinet session in which “false and misleading accusations” over the Kingdom’s response to the Syrian refugee crisis were addressed.

Almost 2.5 million Syrians have been received by Saudi Arabia since the start of the civil war, state news agency SPA reported.

We have been chronicling Saudi Arabia’s mean-spiritedness toward its fellow Muslims for years.  Go here for our complete archive on S.A.’s treatment of refugees.

And, I just found a post here from 2008, written by blog partner Judy, in which she reports that S.A. takes no refugees on a permanent basis because they don’t want them to have any voting power in the future.

Just a reminder that you will be hearing from western advocates for refugee resettlement that the countries of Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon have an “unfair” burden because they have millions of Syrians in camps there.  Always remember that those ‘refugees’ are there on a temporary basis and that when we take in refugees they will be here PERMANENTLY (and we will admit their family members) after the Syrian civil war is long forgotten.  The comparison is not a legitimate one.

RELATED ARTICLES:

German political party: Merkel has made “an unparalleled historical mistake”

Arab groups say Jewish contractor HIAS a big help in getting more Syrian Muslims admitted to US

EDITORS NOTE: In 2013, Saudi Arabia loaded up tens of thousands of Somali and Ethiopian asylum seekers and shipped them back to Africa said Human Rights Watch. The featured image is of Africans boarding buses to the airport for deportation flights to Addis Ababa.

Progressivism Is Illiberal: Modern Liberalism Is at Odds with Peaceful Interaction by Sandy Ikeda

/in , , , , , , /by

A New York magazine article headline declares, “De Blasio’s Proposal to Destroy Pedestrian Times Square Is the Opposite of Progressive.”

That’s Bill de Blasio, the current mayor of New York City, who was elected in 2013 after running unabashedly as the progressive, socially democratic candidate. I find it interesting that people are surprised by the mayor’s illiberal stands on many (though not all) of the major issues he has faced in his short time in office.

One of the latest is his proposal to return cars to Times Square Plaza, in the heart of Midtown Manhattan, by razing the outdoor space created by the administration of his Republican predecessor, Michael Bloomberg. You see, Mayor Bill says he doesn’t like the goings-on there, which lately include women soliciting topless on the street and people dressed as Elmo hustling tourists. His solution? We can’t control all the hucksterism, so let’s shut the whole thing down!

Justin Davidson, the author of that New York magazine article, says it well:

If de Blasio really believes that the best way to deal with street performers in Times Square is to tear up the pedestrian plaza, may I suggest he try reducing homelessness by eradicating doorways and subway grates?

My point goes beyond Times Square Plaza, of course, although that controversy is instructive, as are others (such as his recent attempt to rein in Uber).

The approach the mayor takes in this and similar matters is characteristic of any political ideology that views unrestrained political power as a legitimate tool of social change. That includes neoconservatism and other modern political ideologies, including progressivism.

While it’s a caricature to say that what progressives would not forbid, they would make mandatory, they show a pattern of using force to ban what they don’t like and of mandating what they do. If you think that sounds illiberal, you’re right. Progressivism isn’t liberalism, especially of the classical variety. But even the watered-down liberalism of campus radicals of the 1960s paid more heed to the principle of tolerance than progressives today do.

Progressivism versus Liberalism

Progressivism today goes beyond the liberal position that, for example, same-sex marriage should have the same legal status as heterosexual marriage, to the belief that the state should threaten physical violence against anyone who refuses to associate or do business with same-sex couples.

Progressives have a low tolerance for opposing points of view. Unfortunately, so do some libertarians, but for the most part libertarians do not endorse using political power to eradicate what they believe are disagreeable public activities. Libertarians are much closer to genuine liberals than progressives are.

To a genuine liberal, tolerance means more than endorsing a wide range of beliefs and practices. It means allowing nonviolent people to say and do things that we strongly disagree with, disapprove of, or find highly offensive. It means not assuming our own moral superiority over the wickedness or stupidity of our ideological opponents. English writer Beatrice Evelyn Hall captured that liberal spirit when she (and not Voltaire) wrote, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

The plaza and the streets it encompasses were, of course, the creation of government, so we’re not talking about the municipality bulldozing private property. But it’s not the government-created structure the mayor is objecting to; it’s the purely voluntary — “unregulated” — activities going on in it that he doesn’t like and wants to wipe out with heavy hands and hammy fists.

Closing the Gap Economy

The activity in Times Square Plaza is related to what I called in a recent column the “gap economy,” which refers to the unregulated, money-making activities that arise in the free spaces left open by government regulation and that complete with businesses that have adapted themselves to the mixed economy. Progressives like Mayor de Blasio seem to fear what they cannot regulate and control. They don’t understand that in the free market, there is regulation and that the regulatory principle is not coercion but persuasion, competition, and reputation.

Progressives profoundly mistrust the spontaneous, especially when it’s the result of people acting out of self-interest. But that’s the hallmark and the essence of urban life. New York Times architecture critic Michael Kimmelman sees it this way:

Time and again, Mr. de Blasio leaves an impression that he understands very little about the dynamics of urbanism and the physical fabric of the city — its parks and plazas, its open spaces, libraries, transit network and streetscape, which all contribute to issues he cares most about, like equity and social mobility.

He doesn’t understand because he probably thinks in terms of specific, static objectives (such as his so-called “Vision Zero,” which I write about in “Um, Scarcity?”) rather than what Kimmelman rightly refers to as “the dynamics of urbanism.” As the urbanist (and libertarian friendly) Jane Jacobs explained, those dynamics are messy and inherently unpredictable.

It doesn’t seem to matter to the mayor that ordinary people have demonstrated their preference for Times Square Plaza by showing up in record numbers, just as it doesn’t matter that ordinary New Yorkers have gained from gap-economy activities such as Uber or Airbnb. What concerns progressives like the mayor is that it’s not happening the way they want it to happen. (In the case of Uber, thank goodness, the truly liberal elements of New York soundly defeated the progressive forces.)

Davidson writes,

I understand that the mayor doesn’t care for the carnival atmosphere at Times Square — neither do I. But eradicating a pedestrian plaza because you don’t like who’s walking there is like blasting away a beach because you object to bikinis or paving a park because you hate squirrels. It represents such a profound misunderstanding of public space that it makes me question the mayor’s perception of what counts as progressive.

It’s not the mayor Davidson should be questioning so much as the principles that motivate him. De Blasio just happens to illustrate progressivism in a particularly glaring way.

Sandy IkedaSandy Ikeda

Sandy Ikeda is a professor of economics at Purchase College, SUNY, and the author of The Dynamics of the Mixed Economy: Toward a Theory of Interventionism.

RELATED ARTICLE: Lessons Learned From Kim Davis About Religious Liberty and Government Accommodation

Pope admits danger of Islamic State infiltration among refugees, still wants parishes to accept them

/in , , , , , /by

What could possibly go wrong? Last February, the Islamic State promised to flood Europe in the near future with as many as 500,000 refugees. And an Islamic State operative recently boasted that among the flood of refugees, 4,000 Islamic State jihadis had entered Europe. “They are going like refugees,” he said, but they were going with the plan of sowing blood and mayhem on European streets. As he told this to journalists, he smiled and said, “Just wait.” He explained: “It’s our dream that there should be a caliphate not only in Syria but in all the world, and we will have it soon, inshallah.”

Is societal suicide really a requirement of Christian charity? So many Christian clerics seem to think so — either in regard to this refugee influx or in regard to accepting Islamic blasphemy restrictions on the freedom of speech — that apparently I am a misunderstander of Christianity.

“Pope: ‘I trust the young politicians. Corruption is a global problem,’” by Aura Miguel, Renascença, September 14, 2015 (thanks to Angemon):

But this challenge to welcome these refugees who are making their way into Europe, in your point of view, could it be positive for Europe? Could it be beneficial, a provocation? Is Europe finally waking up, changing track?

It may be. It’s true, I recognize that, nowadays, border safety conditions are not what they once were. The truth is that just 400 kilometres from Sicily there is an incredibly cruel terrorist group. So there is a danger of infiltration, this is true.

Which could reach Rome…

Yes, nobody said Rome would be immune to this threat. But you can take precautions, and put these people to work. But then there is another problem, that Europe is going through a very big labour crisis. There is a country… In fact, I am going to mention three countries, although I will not name them, but some of the most important in Europe, in which unemployment for under 25 year olds is, in one country 40%, in another 47% and in a third 50%. There is a labour crisis, young people can’t find work. So it is a mixture of things and we can’t be simplistic. Obviously, if a refugee arrives, despite all the safety precautions, we must welcome him, because this is a commandment from the Bible. Moses said to his people: “welcome the foreigner, because you also were a foreigner in the land of Egypt”.

But the ideal would be that they didn’t need to flee, that they could remain in their lands?

That’s right, Yes.

Your Holiness, during the Sunday Angelus you made this very concrete challenge to welcome refugees. Have there been reactions? What do you expect, exactly?

What I asked was that in each parish and each religious institute, every monastery, should take in one family. A family, not just one person. A family gives more guarantees of security and containment, so as to avoid infiltrations of another kind. When I say that a parish should welcome a family, I don’t mean that they should go and live in the priest’s house, in the rectory, but that each parish community should see if there is a place, a corner in the school which can be turned into a small apartment or, if necessary, that they may rent a small apartment for this family; but that they should be provided with a roof, welcomed and integrated into the community. I have had many, many reactions. There are convents which are almost empty…

Two years ago you had already made this request, what answers did you get?

Only four. One of them from the Jesuits [laughs]; well done, the Jesuits! But this is a serious subject, because there is also the temptation of the god money. Some religious orders say “no, now that the convent is empty we are going to make a hotel and we can have guests, and support ourselves that way, or make money”. Well, if that is what you want to do, then pay taxes! A religious school is tax-exempt because it is religious, but if it is functioning as a hotel, then it should pay taxes just like its neighbour. Otherwise it is not fair business.

And you have already said that you will be taking in two families, here in the Vatican…

Yes, two families. I was told yesterday that the families have already been identified, and the two Vatican parishes have undertaken to go and search for them.

They have been identified?

Yes, yes, yes, they have. Cardinal Comastri dealt with that – he is my vicar-general for the Vatican – along with Monsenhor Konrad Krajewski, who is the Apostolic Almoner, and who works with the homeless and was in charge of installing the showers underneath the colonnade, and the barbers – truly marvellous. He is the one who takes the homeless to see the museums and the Sistine Chapel…

And how long will these families be staying?

As long as the Lord wants. We don’t know how this will end, do we? Nonetheless, I want to say that Europe has opened its eyes, and I thank it. I thank the European countries which have become opened their eyes to this.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Immigration Lowers Educational Achievement, Survey finds

Refugee Crisis Has European Union Grappling With Its Destiny

Lawmakers Push to Declare ISIS’ Targeting of Christians ‘Genocide’

Pope Francis: “No religion is immune from its own fundamentalism,” and fundamentalists “kill, destroy and defame”

The Illegitimate Pope: Election of Jorge Bergoglio as Pope Francis was contaminated by lobbying in violation of papal laws

Danish police relax laws in Sharia zone to avoid “constant conflict”

Islamic State map of countries it plans to dominate by 2020

What has Rand Paul done?

/in , , , , , /by

One of my readers recently replied to me that he had been a Rand Paul supporter but really couldn’t see what Rand had done that was consistent with what he talks about.

Here’s a recent campaign speech, given in Boise, Idaho, about 2 weeks ago, August 27th:

After watching Rand’s speech, I noticed a comment from viewer “Nate Dawg”. I was rather impressed and, after some fact-checking, editing, personalizing and adding a few links, I am happy to answer my reader’s concerns:

Is Rand Paul really a consistent and principled liberty lover? Let’s take a look at his history in the senate:

  1. Introduced a 5-year balanced budget by cutting spending and not raising taxes.
  2. Filibustered for 13 hours to stop Obama/Holder’s illegal drone strikes on Americans – and succeeded.
  3. Filibustered for 11 hours to kill the PATRIOT Act – and succeeded.
  4. Sued the Obama Administration/Justice Department for illegally collecting all Americans’ phone records, as they are still doing under the so-called FREEDOM Act.
  5. Consistently advocates for social issues to be left to the states, just as his father did.
  6. Only Senate Republican who opposed the efforts to bomb Syria in late 2014.
  7. Opposed the US-funded war in Libya.
  8. Detailed specific plans to form a coalition with Kurds, Turks, and Iraqis to defeat ISIS without ever putting U.S. boots on the ground.
  9. Introduced sweeping criminal justice reform legislation (knows how to actually work with the other side).
  10. Introduced groundbreaking legislation in the Senate that would begin to tear down the, totally failed, War on Drugs, making marijuana a schedule 2 drug (allows vital research to be done on THC and CBD, as well as reduces the penalties for possession), and allowing medical marijuana and recreational marijuana in states that legalize it.
  11. His plans for making social security and other entitlements solvent are crystal clear, phasing in raising the age of eligibility and means tests for wealthier recipients. (This would solve the massive deficit coming out of SS and, most likely, lead to privatization in the form of personal accounts, which is a good thing.)
  12. Released a detailed tax plan that would massively reduce the corporate tax rate (ours is the highest IN THE WORLD at 35%) and the personal rate to a flat 14.5% with a family of four, making less than $50K paying nothing. (Not the “Fair Tax”, which I support, but still a “radical” plan, clearly laid out.)
  13. Consistent top ratings from all three major gun rights advocates groups (NRA, GOA NAGR).
  14. Rated as “the most conservative candidate” with a, “10C” conservative record (the highest available and higher than Ted Cruz), AND is rated better than ALL the major Democratic candidates, when it comes to Civil Liberty issues.
  15. Opposed the Iraq Invasion of 2003 (this was before he was elected to the Senate).
  16. And, last but not least, he has some fun in the process.

This is a direct quote from Nate Dawg:

“He’s not perfect, nobody is. But he’s exactly what this country needs. Not another charlatan hurling vague, vitriolic rhetoric at anyone who challenges him, but a clear-minded, sober, logical problem-solver who presents common-sense solutions to systemic issues.”

I, whole-heartedly, agree. And, Rand Paul’s actions line up pretty darn clearly with his talk…

EDITORS NOTE: Please click here for Tad MacKie’s YouTube page.

Congressional Report: Iran Spends Billions to Foment Global Terror

/in , , , , /by

Responding to a request from Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL), the Congressional Research Service prepared a report detailing monies spent by Iran supporting terrorist organizations in the Middle East.

The report, obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, outlined the massive expenditures by the Iranian regime on Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shiite militias Syria and Iraq, the Assad government, the Houthi rebels in Yemen and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, as well as Iran’s own military program.

These expenditures will only increase with the expected release of $150 billion in sanctions relief due to the current nuclear agreement between Iran and the world powers.

Iranian Military Spending

Although in May 2015, U.S. President Barack Obama stated Iran’s military budget was “$15 billion compared to $150 billion for the Gulf States,” Press TV, an Iranian-owned media outlet, reported in March the Iranian parliament had approved a $300 billion budget for the military for 2015.

The report names the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps’ Quds Force as the main vehicle that carries out terrorism for the regime, citing one study that claims the actual funding for the force is “much greater” than the amount allotted to it in the official budget “as the group’s funds are supplemented by its own economic activities.”

Assad Government

Iran provides an estimated $6-20 billion per year in aid to the Assad regime in Syria. One source estimated in 2013 Iran was giving $600-700 million per month to Syria, while another says that the amount has since doubled. The money funds militias, weapons and military training as well as the purchase of subsidized oil from Iran and other commodities.

Although Iran claims to be cash strapped because of international sanctions, this past July, Iran extended $1 billion in additional financial credit to the Syrian regime.

Shiite Militias in Syria

Iran provides training for Iraqi Shiite militias who are fighting for the Assad regime in Syria. An estimated 5-10,000 Iraqi Shiites are said to comprise these forces that fight alongside Hezbollah and form sniper teams, lead ambushes, establish checkpoints and provide infantry support for Syrian armored corps. Iran also recruits fighters for the Assad regime from Afghanistan and from within Syria itself. Iran pays each fighter an estimated $500-1,000 per month.

Shiite Militias in Iraq

One Iranian cleric cited in the congressional report estimates Iran has spent more than $1 billion in military aid to Iraq since the Islamic State swept through the country and captured large swathes of territory in the north last summer.

The militias Iran funds in Iraq are theose that fought against the United States between 2003 and 2011. Iraqi intelligence officials say just one of these militias, As’aib Ahl Al Haq (League of the Righteous), receives between $1.5 and $2 million per month from Iran.

A report published by Amnnesty International in 2014 titled Absolute Impunity: Militia Rule in Iraq documented the horrific kidnapping and murder of Sunni men by these Shiite paramilitary groups.

Hezbollah

The latest State Department Country Report on Terrorism (2014) states Iran provided Hezbollah with “training, weapons, and explosives, as well as political, diplomatic, monetary, and organizational aid.” The Department of Defense estimates Tehran gives Hezbollah between $100-200 million in aid per year.

Iran-Khamenei-Nasrallah-Kiss-IP_0

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah kisses Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (Photo: © Reuters)

Hamas

In 2006, it was estimated Iran was providing Hamas with $20-25 million per month to cover its governing budget as well as supplying the Gaza-based terror group weapons, technical assistance and military training.

In the years following, it was reported the aid had been cut, while at the same time Iran began sending more assistance to an alternate terror group, Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Most recent media reports say Iran has resumed its support of Hamas, providing “tens of millions of dollars” to Hamas’ military efforts including the rebuilding of tunnels destroyed the 2014 Israel-Gaza war, the replenishment of rockets and the salaries of fighters.

Houthi Rebels

Over the past number of years, Iran has been increasing its activities in Yemen. The Islamic republic is currently supporting the Houthi rebels who are fighting against the Saudi-backed Yemeni government, providing them with “tens of millions of dollars.”

The infusion of $150 billion dollars in sanctions relief due to the current nuclear agreement with the world’s powers, in addition to monies garnered through vast business dealings with the West, will provide Iran will more fodder as it fans out its terrorist fires across the globe.

Meira Svirsky is the editor of ClarionProject.org

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘New drone technology can target any American airbase that threatens Iran’

Pew Poll: Only 21 Percent of Americans Support Iran Deal

Texas Teenager Arrested for Aborted Attempt to Join ISIS

Khamenei: No Deal If Sanctions Are Only Suspended, Not Lifted

Legality of Lifting Sanctions Against Iran Called Into Question