Iran military endorses a nuclear EMP attack on the U.S.

/in , , , , /by

Iranian Military Documents endorsed an HEMP attack scenario on the U.S. What you are about to read sounds like science fiction; it is not. It is a 21st century weapon we must deal with. This article has not been written to frighten anyone; but we should all be frightened because it would be worse than a million ‘Pearl Harbor’ attacks.

AFP reports:

The U.S. military command that scans North America’s skies for enemy missiles and aircraft plans to move its communications gear to a Cold War-era mountain bunker, officers said. The shift to the Cheyenne Mountain base in Colorado is designed to safeguard the command’s sensitive sensors and servers from a potential electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack, military officers said.

The Pentagon last week announced a $700 million contract with Raytheon Corporation to oversee the work for North American Aerospace Command (NORAD) and U.S. Northern Command.

Admiral William Gortney, head of NORAD and Northern Command, said that “because of the very nature of the way that Cheyenne Mountain’s built, it’s EMP-hardened.”

Read more.

33 Minutes: Protecting America in the New Missile Age is a one-hour documentary produced by The Heritage Foundation that tells the story of the very real threat foreign enemies pose to every one of us. The truth is brutal – no matter where on Earth a missile is launched from it would take 33 Minutes or less to hit the U.S. target it was programmed to destroy. Watch the trailer to “33 Minutes” produced by the Heritage Foundation:

33 minutes logoIf the U.S. doesn’t destroy Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons civilization as we know it may be destroyed for hundreds of years. This is a frightening scenario but it can and may very well happen. Here’s why.

If Iran were to explode a high altitude nuclear bomb above the U.S., an HEMP (high altitude electro magnetic pulse) would be set off and it is estimated up to 90 percent of the U.S. population would end up dying. This is not science fiction; it is a fact. Iran’s military documents describe such a scenario.

What is nuclear HEMP? A nuclear device set off at high altitude would set off an electromagnetic pulse that would substantially damage or destroy the entire or most of America’s electric grid. The U.S. would be without electric for a year or more. This means we would have no electric, water service, sewer service, refrigeration, heat, communication, hospital service or anything else that requires electricity to operate. What would follow is starvation, chaos and anarchy on a level never before experienced by mankind.

The issue of a nuclear EMP attack was raised in the final hours of this week’s elections in Israel when U.S. authority Peter Vincent Pry penned a column for Arutz Sheva warning of Iran’s threat to free nations wrote:

“Iranian military documents describe such a scenario — including a recently translated Iranian military textbook that endorses nuclear EMP attack against the United States.”

A knowledgeable source said that the textbook discusses an EMP attack on America in 20 different places.

Arizona Republican Rep. Trent Franks, who is leading an effort to protect the U.S. electric grid from an EMP attack, has recently made similar claims based on the document translated by military authorities.

Once sneered at by critics, recent moves by Iran and North Korea have given credibility to the potential EMP threat from an atmospheric nuclear explosion over the U.S.

Pry has suggested ways for Iran to deliver a nuclear attack: by ship launched off the East Coast, a missile or via satellite.

Either way the result could be destruction of all or part of the U.S. electric grid, robbing the public of power, computers, water and communications for potentially a year.

Iran armed with nuclear missiles poses an unprecedented threat to global civilization.

One nuclear warhead detonated at high-altitude over the United States would blackout the national electric grid and other life sustaining critical infrastructures for months or years by means of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). A nationwide blackout lasting one year, according to the Congressional EMP Commission, could cause chaos and starvation that leaves 90 percent of Americans dead.

Iranian military documents describe such a scenario–including a recently translated Iranian military textbook that endorses nuclear EMP attack against the United States.

Thus, Iran with a small number of nuclear missiles can by EMP attack threaten the existence of modernity and be the death knell for Western principles of international law, humanism and freedom. For the first time in history, a failed state like Iran could destroy the most successful societies on Earth and convert an evolving benign world order into world chaos”. (end quote)

It is reported that Israel has protected much of its electric grid and if attacked by an HEMP it could restore electric within a few days. It has also set up a variety of defenses as well. If Israel can do it, why can’t we.

To protect America there are two things that should be a top security issue that Congress must address without delay.

First Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons or become a threshold nuclear State. Second Congress must quickly pass legislation and funding to ‘harden’ America’s electric grid against an HEMP attack. A nuclear attack can kill thousands; but and HEMP attack could kill millions. Bob Heller

Read more.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Growing Iranian Threat to the Gulf 

Iran sends navy vessels near Yemen amid airstrikes: report

North Korea fires missiles into sea as U.S. defense chief visits region

French television network hacked by group claiming ties to ISIS

Iran Framework Silent on Key Nuclear Site

Will Congress become complicit in expanding Iran’s global terrorist activities?

/in , , /by

Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism around the world. It is no secret that the sanctions have squeezed Iran’s economy and forced it to reduce funding to its terrorist proxies including Hamas and Hezbollah.

Once the sanctions are reduced or eliminated billions of dollars will flow into Iran. Undoubtedly a substantial portion will be used to fund its aggression in the Middle East and elsewhere. Even if Iran was not developing nuclear weapons, until Iran ceases and desists  from spreading terrorism around the world the sanction must remain in place.

It is ironic that sanctions have been placed against Russia because of its aggressive activities in the Ukraine and at the same time Obama seeks to eliminate sanctions against Iran a far more aggressive country.

Let us not forget President Obama now acknowledges at the end of thirteen years, or sooner if Iran chooses to develop nuclear weapons before, it can do so. This is a far different story from what President Obama has been saying to the American people.

If sanctions are reduced President Obama the Democrat Senators who go along with him will be complicit in Iran’s aggression and ultimately in a worldwide conflagration.

It should be noted that according to James Jeffrey, Barack Obama’s former ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary to Iraq, said this about the administration’s current record in the Middle East, “We’re in a goddamn free fall.” Count this administrations Middle East mistakes:

  1. Helping overthrow Muammar Qaddafi in Libya, leading to anarchy and civil war.
  2. Pressuring Husni Mubarak of Egypt to resign, then backing the Muslim Brotherhood, leading now-president Sisi to turn toward Moscow.
  3. Alienating Washington’s most stalwart ally in the region, the Government of Israel.
  4. Dismissing ISIS as “junior varsity” just before it seized major cities.
  5. Hailing Yemen as a counterterrorism success just before its government was overthrown.
  6. Alarming the Saudi authorities to the point that they put together a military alliance against Iran.
  7. Coddling Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey, encouraging his dictatorial tendencies.
  8. Leaving Iraq and Afghanistan prematurely, dooming the vast American investment in those two countries.
  9. And, most of all: Making dangerously flawed deals with the nuclear-ambitious mullahs of Iran.

How Hizbullah and Hamas Benefit from Iran Deal – Eyal Zisser

It is not only the Iranians who will enjoy the economic benefits Iran stands to garner from the deal, but also Hizbullah and Hamas operatives, whose paychecks and equipment come directly from the Iranian pocket. The Iran-U.S. deal has cemented Iran’s position as a legitimate regional power.

Tehran has always coveted this position, which entails the expansion of Iran’s influence to include what it considers its “security belt,” that spans from Iran to Lebanon, Gaza and even Israel. Prof. Eyal Zisser is former director of the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University. (Israel Hayom)

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama now admits Iran will be able to develop nuclear weapons

The Diplomatic Track to War | RealClearPolitics

Here’s How the Fall of Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez Could Shape Debate on Iran, Cuba

Iran blasts mock U.S. carrier in war games

Mideast powers trade blame as Yemen teeters

Some Details on the Senate-proposed ESEA Reauthorization

/in , , , /by

On April 7, 2015, the Senate education committee announced the following as part of a press release:

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 7 – Senate education committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Ranking Member Patty Murray (D-Wash.) today announced a bipartisan agreement on fixing “No Child Left Behind.” They scheduled committee action on their agreement and any amendments to begin at 10 a.m. Tuesday, April 14.

The result of the Lamar-Murray collaboration on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization (the latest version of which is renamed No Child Left Behind) is this 600-page document entitled, The Every Child Achieves Act of 2015.

I read the first 136 pages of the act, which I refer to below as the Alexander-Murray reauthorization.

I am aware that when the document goes before the Senate education committee, it could well be amended. But for now, in this post, I offer my observations on key points in those first 136 pages as they appear in the draft version of Alexander’s and Murray’s draft as linked above.

The first construction I noticed was that the Alexander-Murray reauthorization document does not include the controversial name, No Child Left Behind” (NCLB) (pg. 4). Yes, the table of contents to be revised is the NCLB table of contents. (To view the complete NCLB document, click here.) However, the original name of the legislation, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, is the name that Alexander and Murray use.

I will still use NCLB for the sake of clarity.

Section 1001 of NCLB (“statement of purpose”) is lengthy and included details such as, “holding schools, local educational agencies, and States accountable for improving the academic achievement of all students, and identifying and turning around low-performing schools that have failed to provide a high-quality education to their students…” and “providing greater decision making authority and flexibility to schools and teachers in exchange for greater responsibility for student performance.”

The Alexander-Murray reauthorization “statement of purpose” is not nearly so detailed:

The purpose of this title is to ensure that all children have a fair, equitable, and significant opportunity to receive a high-quality education that prepares them for postsecondary education or the workforce, without the need for postsecondary remediation, and to close educational achievement gaps.

The Alexander-Murray reauthorization deletes NCLB Section 1003– the one about “school improvement” and which includes language such as, “the State educational agency shall allocate not less than 95 percent of that amount directly to local educational agencies for schools identified for school improvement, corrective action, and restructuring.”

The Alexander-Murray reauthorization also removes NCLB Sections 1111 through 1117, which is the federal micromanagement over states being “sure” that districts are meeting state designations of “proficiency.”

The Alexander-Murray reauthorization includes general language about states submitting “evidence-based strategies for improving student achievement” to the US secretary of education. I was initiallu concerned about the secretary’s power to possibly require states to implement certain standards and assessments, and use those assessments to grade teacher and schools, until I read the following (pgs. 23-27):

‘‘(6) LIMITATIONS.— 4 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall not have the authority to require a State, as a condition of approval of the State plan or revisions or amendments to the State plan, to—

‘‘(i) include in, or delete from, such plan 1 or more specific elements of the challenging State academic standards;

‘‘(ii) use specific academic assessment instruments or items;

‘‘(iii) set specific State-designed annual goals or specific timelines for such goals for all students or each of the categories of students, as defined in subsection (b)(3)(A) ;

‘‘(iv) assign any specific weight or specific significance to any measures or indicators of student academic achievement or growth within State-designed accountability systems; 

‘‘(v) include in, or delete from, such a plan any criterion that specifies, defines, or prescribes— 

            ‘‘(I) the standards or measures 2 that States or local educational agencies use to establish, implement, or improve challenging State academic standards, including the content of, or achievement levels within, such standards;

            ‘‘(II) the specific types of academic assessments or assessment items that States and local educational agencies use to meet the requirements of this part; 

            ‘‘(III) any requirement that States shall measure student growth, the specific metrics used to measure student academic growth if a State chooses to measure student growth, or the specific indicators or methods to measure student readiness to enter postsecondary education or the workforce;

          ‘‘(IV) any specific benchmarks, targets, goals, or metrics to measure non-academic measures or indicators; 

           ‘‘(V) the specific weight or specific significance of any measure or indicator of student academic achievement within State-designed accountability systems;

           ‘‘(VI) the specific annual goals States establish for student academic achievement or secondary school graduation rates, as described in clauses (i) and (ii) of subsection (b)(3)(B);

            ‘‘(VII) any aspect or parameter of a teacher, principal, or other school leader evaluation system within a State or local educational agency; or

             ‘‘(VIII) indicators or specific measures of teacher, principal, or other school leader effectiveness or quality; or

‘‘(vi) require data collection beyond data derived from existing Federal, State, and local reporting requirements and data sources. 

‘‘(B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as authorizing, requiring, or allowing any additional reporting requirements, data elements, or information to be reported to the Secretary not otherwise explicitly authorized under Federal law.  [Emphasis added.]

What I envision in reading the above limits is the tying of US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s NCLB-waiver, power-wielding hands.

According to the Alexander-Murray reauthorization, once approved, a state’s plan is good for the entire 7 years of the ESEA reauthorization, unless the state changes its standards, assessments, or teacher evaluation. In such a case, the state plan would need to be revised and resubmitted to the US secretary of education for approval of the revised sections.

Also, the Alexander-Murray reauthorization steers clear of dictating or otherwise monitoring state standards:

EXISTING STANDARDS.—Nothing in this part shall prohibit a State from revising, consistent with this section, any standard adopted under this part before or after the date of enactment of the Every Child Achieves Act of 2015.

As for assessments: Yes, they are required in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school for math and English language arts/reading and also science (though not as often). The states choose their assessments, which have the following requirement (pg.36):

…involve multiple up-to-date measures of student academic achievement, including measures that assess higher-order thinking skills and understanding, which may include measures of student academic growth and may be partially delivered in the form of portfolios, projects, or extended performance tasks;

The states can administer assessments “as one single summative assessment” or “be administered through multiple statewide assessments during the course of the year if the State can demonstrate that the results of these multiple assessments, taken in their totality, provide a summative score that provides valid and reliable information on individual student achievement or growth.”

As to “closing the achievement gaps,” the Alexander-Murray reauthorization notes that states are required to submit as part of their accountability plan information “to ensure that all students graduate from high school prepared for postsecondary education or the workforce without the need for postsecondary remediation and at a minimum.” Such info needs to include details on four subgroups: “economically disadvantaged students; students from major racial and ethnic groups; 14 ‘children with disabilities; and English learner students” (pg. 47). States must frame such goals in terms of state assessment outcomes and graduation rates.

For each of the four subcategories of students above, “not less than 95 percent” of such students must be included in the state’s measuring its annual progress.

And once again, the Alexander-Murray reauthorization affirms its limits to the secretary’s power (pg. 54-56):

‘‘(5) PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL INTERFERENCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL DECISIONS.—Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to permit the Secretary to establish any criterion that specifies, defines, or prescribes—

‘‘(A) the standards or measures that States or local educational agencies use to establish, implement, or improve challenging State academic standards, including the content of, or achievement levels within, such standards;

‘‘(B) the specific types of academic assessments or assessment items that States or local educational agencies use to meet the requirements of paragraph (2)(B) or otherwise use to measure student academic achievement or student growth;

‘‘(C) the specific goals that States establish within State-designed accountability systems for all students and for each of the categories of students, as defined in paragraph (3)(A), for student academic achievement or high school graduation rates, as described in subclauses (I) and (II) of paragraph (3)(B)(i);

‘‘(D) any requirement that States shall measure student growth, the specific metrics used to measure student academic growth if a State chooses to measure student growth, or the specific indicators or methods to measure student readiness to enter postsecondary education or the workforce without the need for postsecondary remediation;

‘‘(E) setting specific benchmarks, targets, or goals, for any other measures or indicators established by a State under subclauses (III) and (IV) of paragraph (3)(B)(ii) including progress or growth on such measures or indicators;

‘‘(F) the specific weight or specific significance of any measures or indicators used to measure, identify, or differentiate schools in the State-determined accountability system, as described in clauses (ii) and (iii) of paragraph (3)(B);

‘‘(G) the terms ‘meaningfully’ or ‘substantially’ as used in this part; 

‘‘(H) the specific methods used by States and local educational agencies to identify and meaningfully differentiate among public schools;

‘‘(I) any aspect or parameter of a teacher, principal, or other school leader evaluation system within a State or local educational agency; or

‘‘(J) indicators or measures of teacher, principal, or other school leader effectiveness or quality. [Emphasis added.]

I’m liking these limits on the US secretary of education.

In the Alexander-Murray reauthorization, assessments continue to eat up a notable portion of state education budgets. However, the language allows for states to seriously reduce testing time from that which is required of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) consortium tests.

And as was true of NCLB, in the Alexander-Murray reauthorization, states must agree to allow students in grades 4 and 8 to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) every two years, with the federal government paying NAEP costs.

Regarding “consortium developed” standards and assessments, the Alexander-Murray reauthorization notes the following:

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a State from entering into a voluntary partnership with another State to develop and implement the academic assessments, challenging State academic standards, and accountability systems required under this section.

So, states can decide to “go consortium,” but the federal government will not require it– in any form. And just to be sure(pg. 86)

‘‘(2) PROHIBITION.—The Secretary shall be prohibited from requiring or coercing a State to enter into a voluntary partnership described in paragraph (1), including—

‘‘(A) as a condition of approval of a State 12 plan under this section;

‘‘(B) as a condition of an award of Federal funds under any grant, contract, or cooperative agreement;

‘‘(C) as a condition of approval of a waiver under section 9401 (“waiuvers of statutory or regulatory requirements”) or

‘‘(D) by providing any priority, preference, or special consideration during the application process under any grant, contract, or cooperative agreement. [Emphasis added.]

Again with a resounding NO to Duncan’s waiver-wielding.

Very nice.

For further reading on the Alexander-Murray reauthroization released on April 7, 2015, see education historian Diane Ravitch’s post, Senate Committee Reaches Agreement on New ESEA and Pennsylvania teacher/blogger Peter Greene’s, Senate Proposal Cuts Duncan Off At Knees.

Mass Immigration and the Results

/in , , , , /by

Yesterday President Obama took time out from golfing to address by video a group of 50 people being sworn in as citizens in Texas where they recited the Pledge of Allegiance and sang the National Anthem………How Patriotic!

Touching isn’t it the president would take time to join in celebrating 50 legal immigrants being Naturalized. As a side note I wonder why he never got his aunt or uncle to apply for citizenship since they have been here illegally for decades?

There were immigrants from Mexico, Viet Nam and several other countries in the world at the ceremony. The Mexican being Naturalized when asked what the first thing he was going to do as a new citizen he replied “I’m going to get a passport and go to Mexico.”

Whenever you hear windbag politicians talk about the country they invariably go into the “this country was founded on immigrants and they are the bedrock of the country.”

That statement was true until the mass immigration movement began back in 1965. The number one legal immigrant (as well as illegal) since 1965 are from Mexico. With such a desire to come one would think they must really be loyal to the country and eager to become citizens and help make the country even more successful.

Well folks, you would be dead wrong. Since 1965 the number of Mexicans that have become Naturalized stands at a dismal 36%. 50% of Mexicans are still on welfare 20 years after arriving and a large percentage of third generation Mexican students are enrolled in special classes to learn English.

It appears from statistics Mexican assimilation into American Culture is bleak at best but what about all the rest of the tens of millions allowed in the country since 1965? Coming from really desperate countries like Somalia, Viet Nam China and other countries we have to know these people came here enthusiastic and ready to assimilate. Well, not exactly. Although better than the Mexican Naturalization numbers the rest of the world’s immigrants allowed in through mass immigration over the past 50 years have Naturalized at a rate of 56%. It really makes you wonder why they are coming but my guess would be “Welfare State”.

Why do we have mass immigration? Anybody look at the water crisis California is in? Governor Brown wants to fine people $500.00 for taking too long of a shower. Really? We have finite resources and does allowing millions of legal immigrants in every year make sense? If someone out there has a reasonable answer I would like to hear it otherwise I chalk mass immigration up as another wrong move since one political party wants new voters and the other party wants cheap labor and screw the citizens as a result.

Obama rejects Netanyahu’s call for Iran to recognize Israel

/in , , , /by

President Obama will not even raise the issue let alone make it a condition of the nuclear talks that Iran must stop threatening the destruction of Israel. Obama chooses to ignore the fact that through its proxies in Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and by sinking a mock-up of a U.S. carrier Iran continues its aggression without pause during the nuclear talks. Obama is entitled to his own opinion but not the facts which he chooses to disregard.

At the same time Obama claims giving Iran a path to nuclear weapons is the best way to protect Israel and the U.S. Obama’s reasoning is so flawed that it is impossible to make sense of what he says.

Obama knows it is only a question of time before Iran has nuclear weapons. In effect he inadvertently acknowledged that his main interest was to negotiate a deal that would keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons while he was still president, when he told Thomas Friedman in an interview “I have been very clear that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon on my watch”. Obama knows that once Obama removes U.S. and UN sanctions there is nothing to stop Iran from developing their nuclear weapons whenever they wish.

He also said he doesn’t trust Iran but that the U.S. is powerful enough to protect itself (meaning) if Iran obtains nuclear weapons. Obama has never addressed the issue how will the U.S. deal with Iran when it has nuclear weapons.

So the ultimate question is—Should the U.S. and Israel take military action against Iran’s nuclear sites now or wait until Iran has used or can reciprocate with nuclear weapons?

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama Rejects Netanyahu’s Call for Iran to Recognize Israel – Kendall Breitman

“The notion that we would condition Iran not getting nuclear weapons in a verifiable deal on Iran recognizing Israel is really akin to saying that we won’t sign a deal unless the nature of the Iranian regime completely transforms. And that is, I think, a fundamental misjudgment,” President Obama said in an interview with NPR on Monday.

“We want Iran not to have nuclear weapons precisely because we can’t bank on the nature of the regime changing….If suddenly Iran transformed itself to Germany or Sweden or France, then there would be a different set of conversations about their nuclear infrastructure.”  (Politico)

Israel Suggests Ways to Make Iran Nuclear Deal “More Reasonable” – Isabel Kershner

Yuval Steinitz, Israel’s minister of intelligence and strategic affairs, on Monday presented a list of desired modifications for the final agreement with Iran over its nuclear program, due to be concluded by June 30, that he said would make it “more reasonable” and close dangerous loopholes.

The Israeli list includes: An end to all research and development activity on advanced centrifuges in Iran. A significant reduction in the number of centrifuges that can quickly become operational if Iran breaks the agreement and decides to build a bomb. The closing of the underground Fordo facility as an enrichment site, even if enrichment activities are suspended there. Iranian compliance in revealing its past activities with possible military dimensions. A commitment to ship its stockpile of enriched uranium out of Iran. And the ability for inspectors charged with verifying the agreement to go “anywhere, anytime” in Iran.

Steinitz said that the suggestion that there was no alternative to the framework agreed in Lausanne, or that Israel had not put forward an alternative, “is wrong.” “The alternative is not necessarily to declare war on Iran. It is to increase pressure on Iran and stand firm and make Iran make serious concessions and have a much better deal.”
Regarding Obama’s statement that America would back Israel in the face of any Iranian aggression, Steinitz said, “We do appreciate it.” But he added that an Iran armed with nuclear weapons would be an existential threat to Israel. “Nobody can tell us that backing and assistance are enough to neutralize such a threat,” he said. (New York Times)

See also Ten Questions on the Nuclear Deal with Iran – Israel Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz (Times of Israel)

Verifying Iran Nuclear Deal Not Possible, Experts Say – Bill Gertz

Despite promises by President Obama that Iranian cheating on a new treaty will be detected, “the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action will not be effectively verifiable,” said Paula DeSutter, assistant secretary of state for verification, compliance, and implementation from 2002 to 2009. Arms control experts challenged the administration’s assertions that a final deal can be verified, based on Iran’s past cheating and the failure of similar arms verification procedures.

U.S. intelligence agencies, which will be called on to verify the agreement, have a spotty record for estimating foreign arms programs. A 2007 National Intelligence Estimate falsely concluded that Iran halted work on nuclear weapons in 2003. The IAEA, in a 2011 report, contradicted the estimate by stating that Iran continued nuclear arms work past 2003, including work on computer modeling used in building nuclear warheads.

DeSutter said the transparency measures announced at best could detect quantitative excesses at known locations, but not secret illegal activities, like those that Iran carried out on a large scale in violation of its obligations under the NPT.

David S. Sullivan, a former CIA arms verification specialist, said past cheating by Iran was confirmed as recently as July 2014. “Why are we negotiating for a new agreement, when existing Iranian NPT violations remain in effect, ongoing, and unresolved, suggesting that Iran is unlikely to comply with any new agreement?” Sullivan said. “The negotiations started as an attempt to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program, but now they have legitimized it.”  (Washington Free Beacon)

Obama’s Foreign Policy Financing Iran’s Terrorist Activities

/in , , , /by

Aside from the fact that the deal with Iran will leave it in a position to have nuclear weapons within a period of 3 to 12 months at their choice, how can anyone consider lifting sanctions on a country that is engaging in numerous wars and terrorist activities through their proxies in Israel, Syria Lebanon, Gaza, and Yemen?

Iran is at war with Israel via proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran says the destruction of Israel is non-negotiable. Israel is a U.S. ally and Obama aside from giving Iran a path for nuclear weapons is about to lift sanctions on Iran which will allow it to increase its income and upgrade its terrorist activities against Israel and other U.S. allies and throughout the Middle East.

So far Obama has left out an essential element of any deal with Iran. Any final agreement must include Iran’s recognition of Israel’s right to exist. If this is not included in order to survive Israel of necessity must take military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Iran “Is Intensifying Efforts to Support Hamas in Gaza” – Con Coughlin

Iran has sent Hamas tens of millions of dollars to help it rebuild the network of tunnels in Gaza destroyed by Israel’s invasion last summer, intelligence sources have told the Sunday Telegraph. It is also funding new missile supplies to replenish stocks used to bombard residential neighborhoods in Israel during the war. Iran has sponsored Hamas’ military operations for years. (Sunday Telegraph-UK)

Netanyahu: Any Final Agreement Must Include Iranian Recognition of Israel’s Right to Exist (Prime Minister’s Office)

Responding to the Iran nuclear framework agreement announced Thursday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement Friday after a meeting of the Israeli cabinet:

  • The cabinet is united in strongly opposing the proposed deal. This deal would pose a grave danger to the region and to the world and would threaten the very survival of the State of Israel.
  • The deal would not shut down a single nuclear facility in Iran, would not destroy a single centrifuge in Iran and will not stop R&D on Iran’s advanced centrifuges. On the contrary, the deal would legitimize Iran’s illegal nuclear program. It would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure.
  • The deal would lift sanctions almost immediately and this at the very time that Iran is stepping up its aggression and terror in the region. The deal would greatly bolster Iran’s economy. It would thereby give Iran tremendous means to propel its aggression and terrorism throughout the Middle East.
  • Some say that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That’s not true. There is a third alternative – standing firm, increasing the pressure on Iran until a good deal is achieved.
  • Iran is a regime that openly calls for Israel’s destruction and openly and actively works towards that end. Israel will not accept an agreement which allows a country that vows to annihilate us to develop nuclear weapons, period.
  • In addition, Israel demands that any final agreement with Iran will include a clear and unambiguous Iranian recognition of Israel’s right to exist.

Defense Minister Ya’alon: Iran Deal Will Increase Iran’s Appetite

Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon on Sunday called the framework agreement “a huge achievement for Iran and a historic mistake for the West.” “Iran is a terrorist monster that funds, trains and arms organizations and entities to wreak havoc among the pro-Western regimes in the Middle East and around the world, and it has no intention of stopping this.” He added that the agreement would set the stage for Iran to “increase its appetite to spread disarray.” (Jerusalem Post)

RELATED ARTICLES:

Top Democrat Charles Schumer defies White House, supports Congressional oversight on Iran deal

U.S., Iran ‘Irritating Each Other’ with Conflicting Statements

RELATED VIDEO: Remember the other nuclear deal?

Maine: Lacrosse coach loses job for criticizing Islam

/in , , /by

Freedom of speech, you say? Increasingly not, in the United States: those who dare notice jihad violence and Islamic supremacism are vilified, marginalized, and defamed. When Scott Lees was fired, was truth a criterion? Apparently not. “Facebook post on Muslims costs Fryeburg coach his job,” by Daymond Steer, Conway Daily Sun, March 24, 2015 (thanks to all who sent this in):

FRYEBURG – After four years at the helm of Fryeburg Academy’s boys lacrosse team, Scott Lees of Conway said he was forced by academy officials to resign as head coach after sharing on Facebook an open letter to President Barack Obama that was unflattering to Muslims.

The letter, written by “An American Citizen,” was about Obama’s speech given in Cairo in 2009. In that speech and in another made last month, the president said Islam has long been a part of American history.

In the first part of the letter, it wonders whether anyone has have ever seen a Muslim hospital or heard a Muslim orchestra. The writer goes on to charge that Muslims “are still the largest traffickers in human slavery,” that they were allied with Adolf Hitler in World War II and that they were either pleased with or silent on the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The writer adds that the Barbary pirates were Muslims.

“I just thought it was an interesting article,” said Lees, who added he’s a politically minded independent conservative. “I thought it was an interesting letter to President Obama and his current administration who are not paying attention to Israel and focusing on Iran.”

Lees, 48, shared the letter on his personal Facebook page on March 17. Two days later, he was handing in his resignation as Fryeburg Academy’s lacrosse coach. He said that although he was supposed to meet with Head of Schools Erin Mayo and Dean Charlie Tryder on March 19, Athletic Director Sue Thurston told him a decision to fire him had already been made.

According to Lees, a property manager who is married and has two children, said he did not want a firing to go on his record. He asked Thurston if they would consider a letter of resignation.

“I’ve never been fired in my life,” said Lees, who also coaches hockey locally. “I’ve been coaching kids since 1992.”

Mayo said the season will start on time. She said Thurston is looking for coaches and Thurston will provide updates as they become available.

“We’ve got a great team,” said Mayo.

The decision on an interim coach could be made as soon as today, Thurston said.

Regarding the letter that led to his departure as coach, Lees said a friend had emailed it to him, and he posted it to see what people would say. Lees — who has since removed it from his Facebook page — said he did not comment on the letter online and that he meant no disrespect to anyone.

Lees said the post didn’t get much response. No students “liked” the post though it was liked by four adults, one of whom commented on it. “It’s not like it went viral,” said Lees. “It’s not like everyone and their brother saw it.”

But according to Mayo Fryeburg Academy has “a number” of Muslim students as well as students of numerous other faiths.

“We prize each young person we enroll as an individual, and we prize the diversity that they bring,” said Mayo, who pointed to the school’s mission statement, which says that “the Academy believes that a strong school community provides the best conditions for learning and growth. Therefore, we strive to create a supportive school environment that promotes respect, tolerance, and cooperation, and prepares students for responsible citizenship.”

Mayo said the school’s teachers, coaches and other staff need to live up to the mission statement.

Lees said he is not a bigot. In fact, he said that two years ago he invited a former Fryeburg student from New York City named Mohammed Islam to stay at his house for nine days. At the time, Islam had a court date in the area for a minor offense.

“If I had a problem with people who are Muslim, then why would I have allowed a Muslim to stay in my home?” asked Lees.

In a phone interview, Islam, who now attends Drexel University in Pennsylvania, confirmed that his former coach had opened his home to him.

“I never saw him as a bigot,” said Islam, who played under Lees for three years.

When asked of the posting, Islam said he spoke to Lees about it. He didn’t think it should have cost Lees his coaching job. Islam said Lees seems to take issue with Obama’s handling of the Middle East.

“I don’t agree with Scott’s opinion, but that doesn’t make him a bigot,” said Islam….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Robert Spencer, PJM: ‘Some Real Bad Bitches’ Or Loyal Citizens of the Islamic State?

Nigeria: Jihadists preach Islam at mosque, then murder 24

NYC jihadi Muslima spoke at Islamic Circle of North America event

Islamic State blows up Assyrian church as Christians celebrate Easter

UK prosecutor: Islamic State like the Beatles, “the boys want to be like them and the girls want to be with them”

Two thousand years of “Imminent” Second Coming

/in , /by

Jesus answered him, “It is written, “You shall worship the Lord your God and serve Him only.” Luke 4:8

Some Christian spiritual leaders are fond of prophesying. They have been at it since the time of Christ. Pat Robertson prophesied that there would be a catastrophic terror attack on several American cities in 2007 and that possibly millions would be affected. That year there were no such catastrophic attacks on American soil. But Robertson had millions of followers who thought his words were inspired by God. They were worshippers of Robertson.

After that colossal flop, the same Robertson, undaunted, brashly stated publicly in 2013 “God told me” that Romney would win the nomination and then the general election. He knew that most of his followers – or rather worshippers – would continue to blindly believe in him no matter how many times he bungled his prophecies.

As shown in the article linked below, such failed prophecies as Robertson’s are not outliers. They are in fact commonplace among the men with the most faith – but not a faith in the scriptures or in God but faith in their own spiritual superiority. They clearly worship themselves, while claiming to worship God.

One of the earliest prophecies of the imminent second coming is ascribed to Montanus, the founder of the Christian sect of Montanism, who in the 2nd Century AD, said, in a frenzied trance, that the Second Coming of Christ was imminent. Like Robertson, he averred that God had told him this.

Igor Shafarevich’s monumental work “The Socialist Phenomenon” describes the fanaticism of the early heretics who launched attacks on the Catholics in hopes of ushering in the Millennium, the 1000 year period of perfect peace described in Revelation. As a corollary, their actions would also have caused the Second Coming, which, according to the book of Revelation, is inextricably linked to the Millennium.
Thousands of people all over Europe were convinced by the masterful sermons of their leaders, that the Millennium, and hence the Second Coming, were just around the corner. And their conviction was so strong that they tackled armies greatly outnumbering them.
Eventually they were defeated, despite their insistence that God was on their side, and despite the scriptural “proof” of their righteousness and the inevitability of their triumph.

The great orators among them who had stirred their fervor, inducing them to wage holy war, swung from ropes or were burned at the stake.

Can you think of anyone today who has taken a scriptural reference and construed it to mean that the US must enter into righteous battle on the strength of such scripture? Battle with a nation that could soon be a nuclear power and comes accompanied by a country that is already a formidable nuclear power? They heavy-handedly substitute quasi-religious hocus-pocus for delicate calculations of military strategy, geopolitics and diplomacy.

Of course, if God is on our side, then we have nothing to fear.

Just like the Anabaptists of the past, who went “fearlessly” to the gallows when their prophecies failed. Has the Christian world learned anything from the past?

There are compilations of prophecies made by Christians who thought God had spoken to them directly. Examples are found here and here.

No doubt these examples were compiled by unbelievers. That is unfortunate. Christians should disseminate such information first, before it is abused as a means of discrediting Christianity. And they should show, particularly to believers, but also to non-believers, that none of this discredits Christianity as taught by Jesus himself, because the “Christians” who disseminated these false prophesies were blasphemers, as shown below, not true followers of Christ. Christians need this information more than unbelievers so that other Christians can avoid the foolishness of the past and follow sound guidance and sound doctrine, particularly as plainly expressed in Jesus’ words in Matthew 24:36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. 37 “For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah..

Did you catch that? Jesus is saying that even He did not know the time of His second coming! That only God knew!

For 2000 years, credulous unthinking Christians of all stripes have been saying that the Second Coming was imminent, and they meant that it would happen in their lifetimes. Some were so confident that God had spoken to them personally that they even set dates. And when those dates came and their prophecies failed to materialize, some of them would set another date and, failing again, yet another. None of these foolish men saw their prophecies fulfilled.

Why did they fail?

Well, by predicting the time and date, or even the time frame of the Second Coming, they were clearly claiming to know more than Jesus himself, as recorded in Matt. 24:26. Would that not be blasphemy? Would God bless blasphemers?

Most likely He would allow them to make fools of themselves as He has in the past.

As for gullible Christians who allow themselves to be seduced by these blasphemous charlatans, history shows that they too get their just desserts.

Nevertheless, it is not necessarily a sin to believe in one’s heart that Christ is coming soon. However, those who bruit this to the world risk joining the ranks of prior prophets, none of whom has been right so far and all of whom have detracted from the Great Commission by making Christians look foolish and hence driving unbelievers further from Christ.

Their salvation is in your hands. Why risk it?

Religious Freedom & Gay Marriage: More than 60 briefs urge court to keep Gay Marriage bans

/in , , , , /by

Happy Easter Monday to everybody! WOW What a phenomenal Holy Week! From the powerful Chrism Mass on Tuesday at the Cathedral (where we had a record number of clergy on hand: 150 priests/ 45 deacons); to the beautiful “Lord’s Supper Mass” on Holy Thursday with our beloved Bishop Barbarito; to the awesome Passion Meditation on Good Friday by “Battle Ready” Doug Barry at the “House that Molgano Made Holy & Bold”; to our Grand Finale of “40 Days for Life” on Sleepy Saturday (where we had over “100” Pro-Lifers in attendance; and finally, a beautiful Easter Sunday Mass at the Cathedral with our beloved pastor, Father Tom Barrett (where I did not recognize 85% of the “Chreaster Families” who showed up for this yearly event). Those are families who show up twice a year – Christmas & Easter. I even had a couple, who arrived late, ask me if we were handing out palm fronds before or after the service??? Lord, have mercy on us…Here’s your sign…

But, it was that Good Friday event that had me up for the rest of the week. Unlike Jesus, who rested in the tomb on the second day of the Triduum (Sleepy Saturday) – I stayed up all the way through Easter Sunday. That is how powerful EWTN’s Doug Barry’s performance was on Good Friday.

Friends: It was not the stunning performance that he put on during his intense Passion Meditation (which ran for 77 minutes & was even more powerful than last year’s performance) – but, it was the 45 minute “Battle Ready” sermon that he delivered before his performance that had everybody’s undivided attention. I mean everybody. I only wish we could have video-taped every minute of it because the Nebraska native covered it all. I almost felt like he was reading from my e-mails & articles as Doug covered it all – from the atrocities of Abortion; to the Curse of Common Core; to the disgusting topic of Gay Marriage; to the under-handed H.H.S. Mandate; to some powerful statements about the liberal political arena we face in our country every day; to the persecution of Christians all over the world (where he spoke about the horrors of the brutal murders by al-Shabab at the university in Kenya last week and the disappearance & kidnapping of the 200 plus girls in Kenya by Boko Haram…And, his theme was: WE BETTER PUT ON OUR ARMOR AND GET READY FOR THE BATTLE…

What I would give to have that 45 minute “beyond bold” sermon spoken in every Catholic church in this country today. I wish we had a DVD of it so that we could show it at all of our churches as part of the Sunday Homily. That is the type of Homily that needs to be delivered in every Catholic church in every diocese and every church in America. Delivered in that bold fashion, with no holding back. Covering every controversial issue that 95% of Catholics are afraid to hear about and that so many of our church leaders and clergy are petrified to even mention. I honestly felt like I was dreaming…This taking place in one of our Catholic parishes in our Palm Beach Diocese…It takes a gutsy, Pro-Life pastor like Father James Molgano – who walks the walk with those big, size 13 black shoes – to host a gutsy, Pro-Life evangelist like Doug Barry in his parish, and I will be forever indebted to these two Real Catholic Church Militants for doing what they did for us on a most appropriate day – Good Friday…

Yes, it took a gutsy, Pro-Life devout father-of-5 to deliver this critical message to the 170 who were in attendance. And, it only took 22 minutes of this powerful sermon to have three ladies get up and leave the church in an abrupt manner. Only 3…I was waiting for more. If that’s what it takes to clean the Lord’s House of hypocrites who do not want to hear the TRUTH – then, we need more house-cleaning in our churches. I, myself, got up 3 times – but, that’s because I could not keep my excitement in. I had to get up…Mr. Barry was speaking to me…and, at times, about me…beyond humbling…

My dear friends: It was more than humbling to have a world renown evangelist like Doug Barry unexpectedly mention my name quite a few times during his talk when he spoke about being “Bold for our Faith” and standing up for our religious freedom by putting my life on the line for our beloved faith day in and day out. Totally unexpected, folks. Publicly claiming that he reads all of my bold e-mails and saying what he said on Friday night is more than enough to give me the fuel, motivation and fire to take my fight against these intrinsic evils even up a notch or two. How does one put a price tag on a spiritual pep rally like that? We all need to hear that powerful message and we all need to act on it. Thank you, brother Doug. I am truly humbled by your encouraging words…

Which leads me to why I am sending this powerful e-mail out to you. It covers a lot of what Doug Barry spoke about on Good Friday and these two articles gives us a different perspective of what is taking place in our beloved country right now as we speak. With this Gay Marriage debacle going in front of the Supreme Court this June – we Pro-Life / Pro-Traditional Christians in this country better be “battle ready” to step it up. It’s time we become more Pro-active as opposed to being Re-active. That is the precise problem with the Holy Catholic Church today. Everything the Church has done since Vatican II has been “Re-active”. January 22nd, 1973 is a perfect example where the Catholic Church needed to flex her holy muscles and say NO to abortion – and Roe v. Wade would have become a footnote – not a death sentence…56 million dead with no birth or death certificate to show for…

The Curse of Common Core is following in the same footsteps as the abortion atrocity. And, the Catholic Church is right smack in the middle of it again – watching it all unfold right before our very own eyes – while jumping on the Bill Gates band wagon and reaching out for those “30 pieces of silver”…Almost makes one want to hang himself from a tree…the kiss of death…the future of our kids.

With 1.2 billion Catholics in the world and over 70 million right here in America – we can no longer afford to be re-active and quiet. WE NEED TO BE PRO-ACTIVE!!! WE NEED TO BE PRO-LIFE!!! We are the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church – the ONLY one that Jesus instituted, Himself! We cannot settle for mediocrity. We can no longer do business with the devil. We need to do business with Saint Michael the Archangel – the one who defends us in battle and serves as our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil, himself. We need to pray that prayer over and over again – and we need to prepare ourselves for an all-out battle. And, we need to be spiritually ready for what’s coming this Sunday – Divine Mercy Sunday – the best kept secret in the entire Catholic Church. (More on Divine Mercy Sunday in up-coming e-mails this week)…Stay tuned…

We should all be praying the 9 day Divine Mercy Novena that kicked off on Good Friday and runs through Divine Mercy Sunday (April 12th). Like Doug Barry & Father James say time and again – “We need to pray; go before the Blessed Sacrament for Adoration; pray before our Blessed Mother to intervene; go to confession; fast; and pray even more for conversion of our beloved country”…

Friends: With what is going on all around the world today and with the upper hierarchy of the Catholic Church not heeding the cry of Our Lady of Fatima to consecrate the country of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Jesus (that originally took place over 98 years ago) – we will continue to see more and more self destruction in our world. More suffering, more pain, more sinning. If we do not do these things that Father James & Doug Barry continue to ask us to do on a daily basis, we can all kiss our Holy Rosaries good-bye and continue to repeat over, and over, and over again.

 

More than 60 briefs urge court to keep gay marriage bans

by Richard Wolf, USA Today

WASHINGTON — Republican officials and religious organizations dominate a growing list of more than 60 groups urging the Supreme Court to uphold state bans against same-sex marriage.

The flood of “friend of the court” briefs arriving at the court by Friday’s deadline easily made the upcoming case the most heavily lobbied in the court’s recent history. Earlier this month, more than 70 briefs were filed by proponents of gay marriage, including one signed by more than 200,000 people.

Sixteen states led by Republican governors were among those calling for the bans in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee to be upheld. Among them were nine states where same-sex marriage bans have been struck down by federal courts — an indication that the battle there and elsewhere will be renewed if the justices uphold the bans.

“How much better for this issue to play out, state-by-state, with citizens locked in urgent conversation,” one of the briefs says. “That is precisely what was happening before the courts began to intervene two years ago. The court should let that process of self-governance continue.”

States opposing gay marriage include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, Utah and West Virginia, where federal appeals court rulings have struck down state bans. The Supreme Court refused to reconsider most of those decisions in October.

Read more.

 

Now Is the Time to Talk About Religious Liberty

by Charles J. Chaput, Robert P. George, William E. Lori, R. Albert Mohler, Jr., and Russell Moore
within Religion and the Public Square

For many religious believers, Passover and the Easter season are cornerstones of the year. Thus our hearts have been especially troubled in recent days by the acrimony and lies surrounding legal efforts, in Indiana and elsewhere, at ensuring religious liberty for people of all faiths.

As Americans commemorate their respective holy days, we urge all our fellow citizens to remember the moral roots of their constitutional system, and to engage in a sensible national conversation about religious liberty. Even those who are not religious have a stake in seeing that our “first freedom”—religious freedom; freedom of conscience—is protected in law.

In recent days we have heard claims that a belief central to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—that we are created male and female, and that marriage unites these two basic expressions of humanity in a unique covenant—amounts to a form of bigotry. Such arguments only increase public confusion on a vitally important issue. When basic moral convictions and historic religious wisdom rooted in experience are deemed “discrimination,” our ability to achieve civic harmony, or even to reason clearly, is impossible.

America was founded on the idea that religious liberty matters because religious belief matters in a uniquely life-giving and powerful way. We need to take that birthright seriously, or we become a people alien to our own founding principles. Religious liberty is precisely what allows a pluralistic society to live together in peace.

Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Philadelphia

Robert P. George
McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence
Princeton University

William E. Lori
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Baltimore

Albert Mohler, Jr., President
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Russell Moore, President
Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission
Southern Baptist Convention

Major Gaps between P5+1 and Iran on Framework Agreement

/in , , /by

This Passover Easter weekend, the media was abuzz in speculative commentary on President Obama’s announcement in the Rose Garden on Thursday April 2nd of the P5+1 Framework for a nuclear deal with Iran. Problem is no one really knows what is involved in drafting let alone concluding a definitive technical agreement between the P5+1 and the Islamic Republic of Iran by June 30, 2015, 90 days from now. President Obama extolled the virtues of the deal saying:

Good afternoon, everybody. Today, The United States, together with Allies and Partners, have reached a historic understanding with Iran, which if fully implemented, would  prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon, As President and Commander in Chief, I have no great responsibility than the security of the American people. I’m convinced that if this framework leads to a final a final comprehensive deal, it will make our country, our allies, and our world, safer. This has been a long time coming. The Islamic Republic of Iran has been advancing its nuclear program for decades.

Sound familiar?  It should.  Read the opening stanza of former President Bill Clinton on October 18, 1994, when he announced a previous nuclear framework agreement that failed to stop North Korea from eventually creating a stockpile of nuclear weapons and nuclear tipped missiles:

Good afternoon. I am pleased that the United States and North Korea yesterday reached agreement on the text of a framework document on North Korea’s nuclear program. This agreement will help to achieve a longstanding and vital American objective: an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.

This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world. It reduces the danger of the threat of nuclear spreading in the region. It’s a crucial step toward drawing North Korea into the global community.

In the words of baseball great Yogi Berra, “its déjà vu all over again.”

Today on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” host Chuck Todd interviewed Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who said:

“I’m not trying to kill any deal. I’m trying to kill a bad deal…The current plan “leaves the preeminent terrorist state of our time with a vast nuclear infrastructure.” It would spark an arms race among the Sunni states, a nuclear arms race in the Middle East,” the Israeli leader warned. “And the Middle East crisscrossed with nuclear tripwires is a nightmare for the world. I think this deal is a dream deal for Iran and it’s a nightmare deal for the world.”

Netanyahu stressed that when it comes to Iran’s nuclear capabilities, he prefers a “good” diplomatic solution to a military one.

He outlined such a solution as “one that rolls back Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and one that ties the final lifting of restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program with a change of Iran’s behavior” and insists that Iran stops “calling for and working for the annihilation of Israel.” He also called for further sanctions on Iran as a way to get the country to take a deal that contains no concessions.

Watch the NBC “Meet the Press” segment with Israel PM Netanyahu:

Sen_ Chris Murphy

Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT)

Connecticut Democratic  Senator Chris Murphy, member of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee  who followed Netanyahu on Meet the Press  found the agreement announced by the President, “remarkable. “ He remarked that  “sanctioning Iran into submission is not what the partners signed up for. When the question of changing Iran’s behavior on support for global terrorism and violations of human rights came up, Murphy basically followed the Administration line of let’s get the nuclear agreement done first. The Washington Post reported  Murphy saying:

It’s true that this deal doesn’t turn Iran from a bad guy into a good guy”. “But it’s a little bit of rewriting of history to suggest these negotiations were about all of the other nefarious activities of Iran in the region. These negotiations were about ending their nuclear program, such that we can start to lift up the moderate elements … [and] talk about all these other issues.

You take this issue [the nuclear program] off the table and you empower people like Rouhani and Zarif, who may see a different path for Iran — less as an irritant, more as a member of the global community.  “And you may see a pathway to solving some of these other problems (ballistic missiles, support for terrorism and human rights violations) and you can do it potentially without new rounds of traditional sanctions.

Ehud Yaari

Ehud Ya’ari Israeli Middle East analyst and Channel 2 TV Commentator.

More emerged about the differences in the announcement about the framework parameters between the State Department Fact Sheet and Farsi statement of Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif. Noted Israel Middle East analyst, Ehud Ya’ari, a Washington, DC Institute for Near East Policy Fellow and Israel TV Channel 2 commentator, identified six major gaps The Times of Israel reported:

  1. Sanctions: Ya’ari said the U.S. has made clear that economic sanctions will be lifted in phases, whereas the Iranian fact sheet provides for the immediate lifting of all sanctions as soon as a final agreement is signed, which is set for June 30. (In fact, the US parameters state that sanctions will be suspended only after Iran has fulfilled all its obligations: “US and EU nuclear-related sanctions will be suspended after the IAEA has verified that Iran has taken all of its key nuclear-related steps.” By contrast, the Iranian fact sheet states: “all of the sanctions will be immediately removed after reaching a comprehensive agreement.”)
  2. Enrichment: The American parameters provide for restrictions on enrichment for 15 years, while the Iranian fact sheet speaks of 10 years.
  3. Development of advanced centrifuges at Fordo: The US says the framework rules out such development, said Ya’ari, while the Iranians say they are free to continue this work.
  4. Inspections: The US says that Iran has agreed to surprise inspections, while the Iranians say that such consent is only temporary.
  5. Stockpile of already enriched uranium: Contrary to the US account, Iran is making clear that its stockpile of already enriched uranium — “enough for seven bombs” if sufficiently enriched, Ya’ari said — will not be shipped out of the country, although it may be converted.
  6. PMD: The issue of the Possible Military Dimensions of the Iranian program, central to the effort to thwart Iran, has not been resolved, Ya’ari said.

The U.S. parameters make two references to PMD. They state, first: “Iran will implement an agreed set of measures to address the IAEA’s concerns regarding the Possible Military Dimensions (PMD) of its program.”

They subsequently add: “All past UN Security Council resolutions on the Iran nuclear issue will be lifted simultaneous with the completion, by Iran, of nuclear-related actions addressing all key concerns (enrichment, Fordo, Arak, PMD, and transparency).” The Iranian fact sheet does not address PMD.

The differences between the sides became apparent almost as soon as the framework agreement was presented in Lausanne on Thursday night. Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif issued a series of tweets late Thursday, for instance, that protested the U.S. State Department’s assertion that the nuclear deal struck between Iran and world powers would only see sanctions on the Islamic Republic removed “in phases.”

If this weekend is an example, the controversy about the framework “parameters” await the details from the final agreement targeted for June 30th. Problem is those negotiations may extend well beyond the current deadline, perhaps may spark further negotiations and may be incapable of resolution unless the Administration caves into all of Iran’s demands. In the meantime Swiss and French trade delegations are in Tehran discussing possible deals, the Germans have already held theirs, and, of course, Russia and China, have already conducted business with the Islamic Republic. Despite Turkey’s Erdogan expressing pique at Iran’s hegemony in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, he will soon hold trade talks again in Tehran on more gas deals.

Thursday’s announcement sent the Tehran Stock Exchange skyrocketing Friday. Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei, President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif are smirking over their victory contemplating keeping all of its nuclear, missile and military applications under wraps. Besides they also have four bargaining chips; three imprisoned Americans and a fourth missing for eight years.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of the P5+1 plus Iran and EU Foreign Relations Commissioner in Lausanne, Switzerland 4-2-15.

Iran’s Persian statement on ‘deal’ contradicts Obama’s claims

/in , , /by

What a surprise. “Iran’s Persian statement on ‘deal’ contradicts Obama’s claims,” by Amir Taheri, New York Post, April 4, 2015:

“Iran Agrees to Detailed Nuclear Outline,” The New York Times headline claimed on Friday. That found an echo in the Washington Post headline of the same day: “Iran agrees to nuclear restrictions in framework deal with world powers.”

But the first thing to know about the highly hyped “historic achievement” that President Obama is trying to sell is that there has been no agreement on any of the fundamental issues that led to international concern about Iran’s secret nuclear activities and led to six mandatory resolutions by the United Nations Security Council and 13 years of diplomatic seesaw.

All we have is a number of contradictory statements by various participants in the latest round of talks in Switzerland, which together amount to a diplomatic dog’s dinner.

First, we have a joint statement in English in 291 words by Iranian Foreign Minister Muhammad Javad Zarif and the European Union foreign policy point-woman Federica Mogherini, who led the so-called P5+1 group of nations including the US in the negotiations.

Next we have the official Iranian text, in Persian, which runs into 512 words. The text put out by the French comes with 231 words. The prize for “spinner-in-chief” goes to US Secretary of State John Kerry who has put out a text in 1,318 words and acts as if we have a done deal.

It is not only in their length that the texts differ.

They amount to different, at times starkly contradictory, narratives.

The Mogherini and French texts are vague enough to be ultimately meaningless, even as spin.

The Persian text carefully avoids words that might give the impression that anything has been agreed by the Iranian side or that the Islamic Republic has offered any concessions.

The Iranian text is labelled as a press statement only. The American text, however, pretends to enumerate “Parameters for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” and claims key points have been “decided.” What remains to be done is work out “implementation details.”…

The Iranian text opens by insisting that it has absolutely no “legal aspect” and is intended only as “a guideline for drafting future accords.”

The American text claims that Iran has agreed to do this or that, for example reducing the number of centrifuges from 19,000 to 6,500.

The Iranian text, however, says that Iran “shall be able to . . .” or “qader khahad boud” in Farsi to do such a thing. The same is true about enrichment in Fordow. The Americans say Iran has agreed to stop enrichment there for 15 years. The Iranian text, however, refers to this as something that Iran “will be able to do,” if it so wished….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Iran runs the table at Lausanne, then brags about U.S. nuke concessions

Husband of NY jihad plotter “shocked,” but had black flag of jihad at Muslim Day Parade

Pakistan: Police on high alert guarding churches against Easter jihad attacks

Australian jihadi was worried his Infidel family would burn in hell

UK: Six Muslims arrested for “Syria-related terrorism offences”

CLICHÉS OF PROGRESSIVISM #51 – The Free Market Cannot Provide Public Education by SHELDON RICHMAN

/in , , , /by

Can the free market provide public education? The short answer, of course, is: yes, look around. Right now, private enterprise and nonprofit organizations provide all manner of education  —  from comprehensive schools with classes in the traditional academic subjects, to specialized schools that teach everything from the fine arts to the martial arts, from dancing to dieting, from scuba diving to scrutinizing one’s inner self.

If we define “public education” as “what the government does now,” then it’s a trick question. Every school serves members of the public. For the sake of this discussion, we can ignore that the word “public” has been corrupted to mean “coercively financed through the tax system.”

The free market — and I include here both for-profit and nonprofit organizations — would provide even more education than it does now but for the “unfair competition” from government. Since government has a resource that private organizations lack — the taxpayers — it’s able to offer its services for “free.” They’re not really free, of course; in the government context, “free” means that everyone pays whether he wants the service or not. Clearly, as long as government can tax its citizens and then provide educational services to them at a marginal price of zero, much private education will never come into being. How ironic that government vigilantly looks for predatory pricing in the private sector when it is the major offender.

There is certainly nothing about education that should lead anyone to doubt that the market could provide it. Like any other product or service, education is a combination of land, labor, and capital goods directed at a particular objective — instruction in academic subjects and related matters demanded by a class of consumers, primarily parents.

Here’s where things may get contentious. Critics of market-provided education are uncomfortable with education’s being treated like a commodity, subject to supply and demand. In the marketplace, consumers ultimately determine what is produced. Entrepreneurs take risks to serve them. And fickle consumers show no mercy when something new and attractive comes along. Ask the shareholders of Boston Chicken or Kodak, among others.

Why should parents alone determine what is and what is not acceptable education? But why not parents? To whose hearts are the interests of children closer? Besides, most parents would no more make educational decisions without consulting knowledgeable authorities than they would make medical decisions without consulting doctors. The uninformed-consumer argument against free-market education is a red herring.

Parents, and the private sector, should be free to determine what is and what is not acceptable academic education for the same reasons they are free to determine what is proper religious education. We don’t use the small number of neglectful parents as a pretext for government control or finance of religion. Nor should we use it as a pretext for government control or finance of schooling.

Defenders of government schooling have enlisted various economic arguments related to “market failure” to dispute the idea that parents in a free market should ultimately determine what educational services are offered. These arguments fail. Education does not have the characteristics of a “public good.” One person’s consumption of a given service can detract from another person’s consumption, and nonpayers can be excluded.

Nor does the positive-externality case succeed. Education obviously does have spillover benefits, but that is not enough in economic theory to justify government action. You would have to believe that the external benefits would cause education to be under-consumed unless the government subsidized it. No one has ever shown that. Nor could anyone. To believe that, you’d have to believe that parents engage in the following reasoning: I’d like to buy X amount of education for my child, but since society will benefit by my child’s erudition without paying anything for it, I’ll buy less than X amount of education. Ridiculous, isn’t it?

The argument that high-quality education is intrinsically too expensive for a significant portion of the population to afford also fails. A free market that can saturate society with refrigerators, microwave ovens, washing machines, and telephones — cellular and otherwise — can surely produce good education for a mass society. The key is entrepreneurship.

We think we know what education is and what methods work. And we do know some things. This sense of certainty might encourage us to think that education is best left to government. But we shouldn’t be so presumptuous, or we could wind up like the nineteenth-century Patent Office official who said the office should be closed because everything useful had been invented.

The world is open-ended. We don’t know exactly what we will learn tomorrow. As fallible beings, we can be sure that at any time, valuable information and opportunities are being overlooked. Scarce resources are being misdirected because our knowledge is incomplete. This is as true for education as for anything else.

What can we do to hasten the discovery and correction of error? We already have a method: entrepreneurship. What entrepreneurs do is search the landscape for instances where resources are being under-used, that is, devoted to the production of goods and services that consumers value less highly than other things those resources might be devoted to. What lures entrepreneurs to discover those instances is profit. Nothing approaches its power to stimulate discovery. Profit accrues when an alert entrepreneur, noticing what others have overlooked, switches resources from producing things consumers value less highly to producing things consumers value more highly.

The application of this principle to education should be obvious. Since we don’t know today all that we may learn about educational methods and objectives tomorrow, we need entrepreneurship in education. Government isn’t up to the task. Bureaucracy is the opposite of enterprise. It stifles enterprise. Government domination of education assures that the entrepreneurial innovation and creativity we are accustomed to in, say, the computer industry will be missing from education.

There is no good substitute for the decentralized, spontaneous entrepreneurial process that full privatization of education would stimulate.

Thus it is not only the case that the free market can provide education. We may conclude further that only the free market should provide education.

Summary

  • As long as government can tax its citizens and then provide educational services to them at a marginal price of zero, much private education will never come into being.
  • Most parents would no more make educational decisions without consulting knowledgeable authorities than they would make medical decisions without consulting doctors.
  • We don’t use the small number of neglectful parents as a pretext for government control or finance of religion. Nor should we use it as a pretext for government control or finance of schooling.
  • Government domination of education assures that the entrepreneurial innovation and creativity we are accustomed to in, say, the computer industry will be missing from education.

For further information, see:

“Education: What About the Poor?” by Chris Cardiff

“Restoring Parental Responsibility for Education” by Marshall Fritz

“Dissatisfaction Guaranteed and No Money Back” by Lawrence W. Reed

“The Spread of Education Before Compulsion: Britain and America in the Nineteenth Century” by Edwin West

“The Global Education Industry: Lessons from Private Education in Developing Countries” by Anthony Flew

“Is There A Viable Alternative to College?” by Jeffrey Tucker

Cliché #26: “Without Government Schools, Most People Wouldn’t Get An Education” by Max Borders

ABOUT SHELDON RICHMAN

Sheldon Richman is the former editor of The Freeman and TheFreemanOnline.org, and a contributor to The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. He is the author of Separating School and State: How to Liberate America’s Families.

EDITORS NOTE: The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) has been proud to partner with Young America’s Foundation (YAF) to produce “Clichés of Progressivism,” a series of insightful commentaries covering topics of free enterprise, income inequality, and limited government. This is the final installment in the series.

The table of contents with links to all previous chapters appears here. Watch for the announcement later this spring of the hard copy edition, to be distributed at schools and campuses across the country and abroad.

A new Friday series, “Real Heroes,” begins on FEE.org later this month.

President Obama’s Questionable Framework Agreement for an Iranian Nuclear Deal

/in , , /by

See these smiling faces, Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman, her boss Secretary of State John Kerry, Energy secretary and  former MIT Physicist Ernest Moniz and an unidentified colleague?  Their smiling because they may have just  laid  on Americans, Israelis and the World an April fool’s Joke of no laughing matter – an alleged political framework for a nuclear deal  with Iran.  A deal  yet to be  finalized with the Islamic Republic of Iran  that their ‘Frank Underwood wannabe boss’, President Obama  announced in the Rose Garden yesterday.   Obama said:

“Today, after many months of tough, principled diplomacy, we have achieved the framework for that deal. And it is a good deal,” Obama said.

Obama delivered his statement from the Rose Garden where he described it as an “historic” agreement. He said he is “convinced” that, if the framework leads to a final agreement, “it will make our country, our allies, and our world safer.”

  • “This has been a long time coming. The Islamic Republic of Iran has been advancing its nuclear program for decades,” Obama said.
  •  He said Iran has “eliminated its stockpile of dangerous nuclear material.”
  • Obama said the deal was the “best option” to address concerns about Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon because the country had agreed to a “robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime” that ensured it would not be able to produce a weapon covertly.
  • According to the president, the agreement outlined in the framework “shuts down Iran’s path to a bomb using enriched uranium” because Iran will not be permitted to enrich uranium for ten years.
  •  Obama noted the deal would include sanctions relief for Iran. However, he specified some US sanctions would not be lifted and said “sanctions can be snapped back into place” if Iran violates any agreement.
  • Obama, who described the framework simply as a “good deal,” alluded to critics who have been skeptical of the negotiations when he said they “succeeded exactly as intended.”
  • “Iran has met all of its obligations,” Obama said.
  • Obama said the framework sets the stage for an agreement that “would cut off every pathway Iran could take” to a nuclear weapon. He also stressed any final agreement would include strict measures to verify Iran is complying.
  • “Iran has also agreed to the most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime,” he said. “This deal was not based on trust. It’s based on unprecedented verification.”

Watch this C-SPAN Video announcement of the Framework Agreement with Iran at the White House Rose Garden:

Bibi 4-2-15

Israeli PM Netanyahu 4-2-15. Source: Times of Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in a telephone conversation with President Obama told him “A deal based on this framework would threaten the survival of Israel.”  USA Today noted Netanyahu‘s objections:

  • In a string of tweets, Netanyahu spokesman Regev outlined a series of objections to the Iran plan.
  • “This deal would legitimize Iran’s nuclear program, bolster Iran’s economy & increase Iran’s aggression & terror,” Regev tweeted.
  • “Such a deal would not block Iran’s path to the bomb,” he added. “It would pave it.”
  • Netanyahu also said that “the alternative is standing firm and increasing the pressure on Iran until a better deal is achieved,” Regev wrote.

The White House readout of the call with Netanyahu President  said that Obama  “underscored that progress on the nuclear issue in no way diminishes our concerns with respect to Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism and threats towards Israel and emphasized that the United States remains steadfast in our commitment to the security of Israel. Further, “he has directed his national security team to increase consultations with the new Israeli government about how we can further strengthen our long-term security cooperation with Israel and remain vigilant in countering Iran’s threats.”

Mark Kirk

Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL)

It was left to the architect of much of the Iran nuclear sanctions legislation of the past decade, Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL)  to blast the framework deal announced by President Obama.  As cited in a Politico article:

The Illinois Republican trashed a deal struck by global powers with Tehran, concluding in a phone interview “that Neville Chamberlain got a lot of more out of Hitler than Wendy Sherman got out of Iran,” a reference to a top State Department negotiator on the deal.

But Kirk wasn’t done, forecasting that lifting any more sanctions on Iran “dooms the Middle East to yet another war,” one that Israel will have to clean up, perhaps in a nuclear fashion.

 “We should be a reviewing presence to see how this unfolds,” Kirk said of Congress’ role, adding: “Which we all know is going to end with a mushroom cloud somewhere near Tehran.”

Kirk’s office called to clarify that Kirk was referring to a nuclear test in Iran.

Asked if he could find anything to like in the deal, Kirk responded: “No.”

He said now Iran could speed its production of nuclear weapons, which he fears could end up in the hands of Iranian-backed rebels throughout the Middle East, including Yemen.

 “There’s nothing for Iranians to do but go at breakneck speed to a nuclear weapon,” Kirk said. “We’re moving straight to forcing Israel to clean up this mess … when the West does nothing; Israel over and over has done something.”

The deal, he added, “commits Israel on a path to war with Iran. And we shouldn’t force our best ally in the region to clean up the mess.”

Not exactly the balm of Gilead to Netanyahu who has had a fractious contentious relationship with the Administration on this existential issue confronting the Jewish nation.  Netanyahu is huddling with his Security Cabinet discussing the fine points of  what some have called a ‘vapor agreement’ as  even the State Department negotiating team of experts believe it will require word smithing over every term in every sentence of the definitive agreement which  could mean that the June 30th deadline may not see the end of negotiations. That in fact, negotiations could go on with Iran past the end of the President term in January 2017. In which case it would left to his successor to conclude or walk away from the framework deal  ending Obama’s  legacy  endeavoring to bring the Islamic republic into the regional and world umbrella of responsible governments.  A faint hope that the successor might be more responsible   than aging Supreme Ruler Ayatollah Khamenei, aged 75 and in alleged poor health who declared “death to America” in the midst of final framework negotiations. Then there is the senior Iranian IRGC official who this week said that destruction of Israel was “non-negotiable.”  This all sounds like the old English adage “if wishes were horses then beggars could ride”.

You might ask yourself how Obama got to this position. As much as he never stops blaming the Bush Administration for everything that has gone wrong in the Middle East and especially with Iran’s nukes, the origins of the game of diplomacy with coercive sanctions began in the latter half of the Bush Administration from 2005 to 2008 when the original E+3 negotiations with the Islamic Republic started during the Iraq War. The architects of the prototype strategy were Secretary of State Condi Rice and Phillip Zelikow, former 9/11 Commission Director and Counselor at State.  That is revealed in a fascinating Commentary article, “How America Bamboozled Itself about Iran”.

Criticism can be found in the current edition of a new international business Journal, Quartz co-authored by Mark Dubowitz, Executive Director and Annie Fixler of the Center for Sanctions and Illicit Finance of the Washington, DC-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD).  FDD’s experts led by Dubowitz have provided important testimony on Capitol over the debates on the virtues of Iran nuclear sanctions and achievement of possible nuclear breakout under various scenarios.  The Quartz article title by Dubowitz and Fixler echoes Israeli PM Netanyahu’s response about the framework on his call with President Obama, “Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran puts the world’s safety at risk.”

The key concerns rose by Dubowitz, Fixler and others are:

  • The Administration abandoned original commitments to “dismantle” “a lot” or “significant” portions of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.  As evidenced by comments in Lausanne by  Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif, the infrastructure to create fissile material remains intact which is unlikely to keep  Iran  away from  achieving nuclear breakout in a year or less, notwithstanding the alleged sunset provisions.
  • The deal will sunset in 10 to 15 years, which presumably would enable a subsequent Iranian regime to vastly expand centrifuges to achieve nuclear breakout in a year or less.
  • Iran will no longer have to ship its current stockpile of enriched uranium outside of Iran for reduction, but will convert it to a gaseous form easily reversible technically in a few weeks.
  • Iran will retain over 6000 centrifuges for uranium enrichment, that the authors point out is more than six times the level originally sought by the Administration and just enough for producing fissile material for bomb making.
  • Fordow, the underground centrifuge hall near Qom would have less than 1,000 centrifuges allegedly for  isotope research but easily converting to nuclear fuel enrichment and  it is ‘impervious to possible Israeli attack”.
  • There is only nodding mention of Iran’s non-compliance with repeated requests by the IAEA for information on previous military developments such as nuclear explosive triggers, miniaturization of warheads and the ICBM program that may already have been  accomplished in cooperation with North Korea.
  • Proposed  redesign of the Arak heavy water reactor  may still leave the project capable of producing plutonium;
  • The President’s comment that “if Iran cheats the world will know about it” seems implausible given that the IAEA will not have inspection access  to known facilities on an unscheduled basis, nor because of Iran’s non compliance on previous military developments would it have information on illicit or clandestine locations, such as those alleged elsewhere in Iran, Syria and North Korea.
  • As the authors write, the questions the President’s boast that  if the terms of the technical agreement are violated by Iran, that tough  sanctions “can be snapped back” is implausible given current experiences with Russia and China.  They warn, “Once strictures are loosened, it will be difficult to put the sanctions back together again. Western economic leverage will be sharply reduced, leaving military strikes as America’s only real option to stop an Iranian bomb.”

The authors conclude:

Once upon a time, the administration insisted that no deal was better than a bad deal. The parameters of the nuclear deal that have emerged look like we are headed toward a seriously flawed one. This will leave Iran as a threshold nuclear weapons state increasingly immune to economic pressure, further supercharge Iranian aggression in the region, fan the flames of sectarian warfare, and possibly even encourage Iran’s Sunni adversaries to develop their own nuke capabilities. Indeed, “game-changing, legacy-setting” it will be.

There is a model for what the US and its benighted P5+1 partners have signed off on in the framework agreement with  failed North Korean nuclear agreements. Yesterday’s  Wall Street Journal column by Dan  Henninger , “Why the Iran Deal is Irrelevant” cited chapter and verse of the history over the period from 1990 to 2013 of wholesale cheating found by the IAEA, clandestine development and test  of nuclear weapons and ICBMs by the hermit kingdom of the People’s Republic of North Korea.  Lest we forget Ms. Sherman was involved in the  failed Clinton era negotiations of a similar framework agreement involving exchange of light water reactors for heavy water ones and  interim fuel oil. That collapsed with tests of ICBMs in 1998. Then we had similar exasperating experiences during the Bush era culminating in the October 2006 test of a nuclear device. This despite the repeated use of six party discussions with North Korea involving China Russia, South Korea, Japan and the US.  Repeated UN Security Council resolutions passed following each violation by North Korea  imposing sanctions. Those coercive measures did not deter the hermit Kingdom  from its strategic objectives of a missile deliverable nuclear capability threatening Japan, South Korea and the US.

Henninger’s money quote from his column “Nuclear talks with North Korea prove that Iran’s nuclear program will go on-deal or no deal.”

The cheating by Iran has already started. Foreign Minister Zarif criticized the State Department Fact Sheet on the framework agreement as “lies”. Stay tuned for developments.

Kenya: Laughing Muslims taunted Christians as they massacred them, “This will be a good Easter holiday for us”

/in , , , /by
Muslim-massacred-Christians-Garissa-University-Kenya

Muslim slaughter of Christians at Garissa University, Kenya.

“We have come to be kill and be killed,” the Muslims screamed out as they shot the Christians. Where did they get the idea to scream out something like that? From the Qur’an: “Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed.” (9:111) Not that this has anything to do with Islam!

“Laughing Somali gunmen taunted victims in university massacre,” by Adow Jubat, AFP, April 3, 2015:

Garissa (Kenya) (AFP) – Piles of bodies and pools of blood running down the corridors: survivors of the Kenya university massacre described how laughing gunmen taunted their victims amid scenes of total carnage.

Salias Omosa, an 20-year-old education student, said the victims were woken up at gunpoint in Thursday’s pre-dawn attack, and Muslims and non-Muslims picked out by “how they were dressed”.

“‘We don’t fear death, this will be a good Easter holiday for us,’ the attackers were shouting in Swahili, then shooting their guns,” Omosa recounted, still trembling with terror and sitting in the refuge of a military camp.

Omosa managed to escape amid the carnage at Garissa University, after seeing two of his friends executed by the Al-Qaeda-linked attackers, who he said were wearing masks and military-style uniforms.

“I have seen many things, but nothing like that,” said Reuben Nyaora, a clinical officer working for the aid agency International Rescue Committee (IRC).

“There were bodies everywhere in execution lines, we saw people whose heads had been blown off, bullet wounds everywhere, it was a grisly mess,” Nyaora told AFP.

Nyaora had rushed with colleagues from his normal work with an IRC ambulance team in the giant Dadaab refugee camp, some 90 kilometres (50 miles) away.

He was one of first frontline medics to enter university halls, providing first aid to both survivors and troops wounded in the heavy fighting.

“We were giving first aid during the fighting – and there were soldiers being shot right in front of us, as well as the casualties among the hostages,” the 32-year old Kenyan told AFP, his voice trembling.

“Then when we went into the halls, it was too horrible, too awful to imagine, and yet we saw it,” he said.

“Everyone seemed dead, but then as we talked, some students who had been hidden for hours came out – some from wardrobes, others from the ceiling, and then others who had lain down with the dead, covered in blood, hidden among their friends who had been killed.”

He described how he witnessed three women apparently dead, covered head to toe entirely in blood but in fact physically unharmed, pick themselves up from a pile of corpses.

“The ladies said the gunmen had screamed out in Swahili as they shot the men: ‘We have come to be kill and be killed,’” Nyaora said.

“Then they told the women to ‘swim in the blood’”, as though they were making fun of them, playing games and apparently enjoying the killing, he said, before moving on after apparently forgetting to shoot them too….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Kenya: Muslims screaming “Allahu Akbar” only shot those who couldn’t recite Qur’an

Dutch researcher: “The better integrated, the higher the risk of radicalization”

Imam of Mecca’s grand mosque calls for all-out war against Shi’ites and Christians

Philadelphia Muslima arrested for trying to join the Islamic State

Powerful Video: Future of New York State Education Exposed

/in , , , , , /by

On March 31, 2015, the New York State Assembly proved that budgeting well takes a back seat to “budgeting badly but on time.”

rotten apple

Even before the official vote was taken, Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie knew that the budget would pass the Democrat-controlled Assembly because “the people of this state want an on-time budget.”

So, according to Heastie,  it’s “the people” who “want” politicians to tell New York schools how to evaluate teachers– just so long as the screwy budget that also relieves New York’s wealthiest from sales tax on yachts is Approved. On. Time.

Due to that Democrat-induced, “on time” approval, New York now has a similar teacher evaluation stupidity that passed in Louisiana in 2012 (with student test scores counting for 50 percent of a teacher’s evaluation unless the teacher is rated “ineffective,” in which case the test scores override all else). Moreover, New York has an extra layer of idiocy, even outdoing Louisiana: the “independent evaluator” nonsense that promises to introduce unprecedented disruption in the running of already-pressured schools as their administrators could be required to travel to other schools to evaluate teachers in unfamiliar contexts.

Did I mention that all of this “admin swap” means nothing in the face of the “ineffective test scores” trump card?

And “ineffective,” well, that is To Be Determined by the New York State Education Department (NYSED).

Ahh, yes. The bottom line is that all New York career teachers are now at the mercy of whatever test score “growth” NYSED concocts in its effort to please a governor who is decidedly and openly hostile to the “public school monopoly” he vowed to “bust” upon reelection.

There you have it, People of New York: A casualty of the “budgeting on time” that Heastie says you demand.

Therefore, don’t blame the “heavy-hearted” Democrats captured in short order in the brief, powerful video below. And certainly don’t blame those clueless legislators who voted for a budget without fully comprehending its ramifications.

The politicians are innocent… right?

Future of NYS Education, by Stronger Together (ST) Caucus