This is a talk that I gave recently in Chattanooga, TN. Chattanooga was the site of the most recent jihadi attack in the U.S.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Where the Islamic State has directed or inspired jihad attacks worldwide
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROCLAMATION
At every crossroads in the American story, courageous individuals of all backgrounds and beliefs have answered our Nation’s call to serve. Today, the sacrifices of our fallen heroes echo in safer towns and cities, countries and continents — resonating throughout a world they forever made freer. Their legacies are solemnly enshrined in the history of our eternally grateful Nation, as well as in the hearts of all who loved them. Today, we honor the Gold Star Mothers and Families who carry forward the memories of those willing to lay down their lives for the United States and the liberties for which we stand.
The proud patriots of our Armed Forces never serve alone. Standing with each service member are parents, spouses, children, siblings, and friends, providing support and love and helping uphold the ideals that bind our Nation together. While most Americans may never fully comprehend the price paid by those who gave their last full measure of devotion, families of the fallen know it intimately and without end. Their sleepless nights allow for our peaceful rest, and the folded flags they hold dear are what enable ours to wave. The depth of their sorrow is immeasurable, and we are forever indebted to them for all they have given for us.
Despite their broken hearts, the families of these warriors are full of love and they continue to serve their communities and comfort our troops, veterans, and other military families. Our country is constantly inspired by their incredible resilience, and in their example we see the very best of America. On this day of remembrance, we honor our Gold Star Mothers and Families by living fully the freedom for which they have given so much, and by rededicating ourselves to our enduring obligation to serve them as well as they have served us.
The Congress, by Senate Joint Resolution 115 of June 23, 1936 (49 Stat. 1985 as amended), has designated the last Sunday in September as “Gold Star Mother’s Day.”
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim September 27, 2015, as Gold Star Mother’s and Family’s Day. I call upon all Government officials to display the flag of the United States over Government buildings on this special day. I also encourage the American people to display the flag and hold appropriate ceremonies as a public expression of our Nation’s gratitude and respect for our Gold Star Mothers and Families.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-fourth day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand fifteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and fortieth.
BARACK OBAMA
News Anchor Tomi Lahren is 22-years old and from South Dakota. She provides her “Final Thoughts” commentary on Islam and violence. The video is less than 3 minutes long. Tomi says a lot in those 3 minutes.
Rohingya (Burmese) Muslims are coming to the U.S. This group of young men was apprehended by the Malaysian government, a Muslim government, that doesn’t want the Rohingya. So we are taking them!
I thought I was done today. I was just going to tackle my bulging e-mail in box when I came across an e-mail from reader Judith alerting me to this news from the Bangkok Post yesterday.
24 Rohingya (Burmese) Muslims are on the way to the US, but the article tells us that since right after 911 we have admitted 13,000 Burmese Muslims (how many are Rohingya?).
Ahhhh!
While we focus on the fact that Syrians can’t be screened, frankly neither can Muslims who get on boats in Southeast Asia (claiming to have been kidnapped) be properly screened!
New readers of RRW don’t know that we have an entire category on the very ‘observant’ followers of Islam that are known as the Rohingya.
We have 180 posts in our ‘Rohingya Reports’ category extending all the way back to 2007. Back in 2007 and early 2008 there was no way the US State Dept. was going to admit Rohingya Muslims, but clearly all that has changed
Here is the story at the Bangkok Post (which won’t let me snip much, so please go read it yourself):
At 46 years old, Basamai, an ethnic Rohingya Muslim man, will for the first time obtain identity documents that will allow him to resettle in the United States next week, along with 23 other trafficking victims.
The 24 to be resettled follow four who left Thailand earlier this month, in a humanitarian programme that has resettled 13,000 Muslims from Myanmar since 2002, according to the US Department of State Refugee Processing Center.
Following their arrival in the U.S. — the exact location remains unknown — the Rohingya group will undergo Cultural Orientation Training before they can be resettled, said a source from the Ministry of…
Cultural Orientation Training, here? in the US? That is a new one on me.
They were screened by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and the star of this story hopes to bring his wife and 8 daughters to America real soon!
RELATED ARTICLE: The Rising Tide of Third World Refugees and the Plight of NATO’s Southeastern Flank
RELATED VIDEO: Final Thoughts on Islam and violence from News Anchor Tomi Lahren
Drone-strikes are the nearest thing possible to a pacifist’s ideal weapon. They pose no risk to one side in an engagement, and the studies that exist show that on the ground the ration of unintended casualty rates are lower than in any other form of military engagement. When people complain about ‘collateral’ damage caused by drone strikes on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, for instance, they should consider how much bloodier an engagement would be expected were the Pakistani army to be sent in.
But like every other means of warfare, drone-warfare throws up its own ethical and moral problems. Not the least of them has been the growth in the legalisation of war at the same time as what some critics would describe as its bureaucratisation. This week this came around to hit David Cameron. Earlier this month two British citizens fighting for ISIS in Syria were killed by a British-ordered drone-strike. David Cameron announced this to the House of Commons. The Prime Minister described the strikes as ‘entirely lawful’ and said that the government was ‘exercising Britain’s inherent right in self-defence.’ Elsewhere there were briefings to the press suggesting that the two men posed an imminent danger to the UK, including possibly even to Her Majesty the Queen.
Here and in others of its statements on the strikes, the government has wandered into some very undesirable areas. The questions around these drone strikes initially appeared to surround the legality of British strikes taking place inside Syria rather than solely inside Iraq. But questions over the precise nature of the intelligence information which led to the strikes also began to be voiced. And now this week the charity ‘Reprieve’, with the backing of the Green Party’s Member of Parliament among others, has announced that they are starting a legal challenge against the government’s decision. They claim that the basis of this legal action will surround the legality of military operations in countries where Britain is not officially at war. But it is likely to spill into a scavenging mission to find out about the nature of the intelligence which gave rise to the strike. Given the already slightly shifting story from the government on the urgency of the strike it is possible there is a weakness somewhere in here.
Among the things the UK government should learn from this is something which the last Labour government also had to learn – which is the danger of announcing anything more than the absolute bare minimum when it comes to matters of intelligence.There will always be a demand for more information – from the public, media and legal-profession – but the demand should be ignored. Intelligence is too delicate a matter to ever be politicised.
But attention should not be only on the government. It should also be on those people like Caroline Lucas MP and Reprieve who seek to make even drone-warfare effectively impossible. The general public have little sympathy or care for young British men who go to Syria to indulge their desire for sadism and butchery. The niceties and even legalities of their deaths are of little interest to most of them. But that voice is barely if ever heard. It is the voice of the tiny minority of activists who oppose such strikes who are always most heard. But it is they – the people who try to make even British drone-missions a legal impossibility – who are the ones who have the most difficult questions of all.
FROM THE DIRECTOR’S DESK
Is this the week that the West finally abandoned the remnants of its shattered moral authority in the Syrian crisis? It would appear so.
We squandered the opportunity to hold President Assad to account for his violation of international agreements through the use of chemical weapons in 2013. We have failed to prosecute the war against ISIS with any degree of vigour, meaning that it drags on as a conflict of attrition. And we now appear to be subcontracting decision-making in the region to Russia’s President Putin given the military firepower he has deployed to assist Assad in the past couple of weeks, with more seemingly to follow.
Our weakness and indecision contrasts unfavourably with Putin’s opportunism and determination. He has seen our dithering as an opportunity to not only ensure that his Syrian puppet remains in office, thereby maintaining Russian influence in the Middle East, but to humiliate the West by forcing it to sacrifice its values in the process. Our demands that the mass murderer who began this conflict and who is largely responsible for its perpetuation can be no part of the new Syria have begun to be set aside. Where once we said Assad had to go, now we say Assad may need to stay for a transitionary period.
But there will be no transition if Assad stays. He won’t be going anywhere. Putin knows it. Assad knows it. And our own leaders know it too. They are too ashamed to say it, but that is what Russia’s plan for Syria means.
Some will say we will have the consolation prize of a full international assault against ISIS which will drive it out of Syria and Iraq. This may be true. But it will be a pyrrhic victory if so. Because the seeds of the next ISIS will have already been sown by our betrayal of human rights and freedom in the conclusion of such a squalid deal. Islamists the world over will clamour to recruit more of our own impressionable young citizens for the next jihadi hotspot, using the duplicity of the West as a rallying cry to the need for a pure Islam which can defend the true believers.
In the meantime, Assad will be free to wreak vengeance on the remainder of Syria’s population, Hezbollah will secure a permanent arms supply route to benefit from the advanced weaponry flowing into Syria, and Iran will be emboldened to make its own advances in the region. If Putin can get away with it, why can’t the mullahs?
This is the stark future facing our leaders as they decide how to react to Russia’s posturing. They can accept it. Or they can call Putin’s bluff, put together their own plan for a Syrian future without Assad, and get on with implementing it.
Dr Alan Mendoza is Executive Director of The Henry Jackson Society
Follow Alan on Twitter: @AlanMendoza
This story is from Syracuse, NY, but it is all about a letter 18 mayors sent to Obama telling him that they want MORE Syrian refugees now!
Remember Syracuse is the city that saw a beautiful Catholic Church become a mosque. I’m guessing the mayor wants to see more of that because the majority of the Syrians to be admitted to the US through the UN are Sunni Muslims. Kind of ironic that they penned this letter when the Pope was here. Does he want more Muslims to take over more Catholic Churches worldwide?
Clearly Catholic Charities and Mayor Miner of Syracuse do!
SYRACUSE, N.Y. — Mayor Stephanie Miner is one of 18 mayors encouraging President Barack Obama to accept additional Syrian refugees into the United States.
Mayor Stephanie Miner: “[I]…urge you to increase still further the number of Syrian refugees the United States will accept for resettlement.”
“Our cities have been transformed by the skills and the spirit of those who come to us from around the world,” the letter reads. “The drive and enterprise of immigrants and refugees have helped build our economies, enliven our arts and culture, and enrich our neighborhoods.”
All 18 mayors are members of Cities United for Immigration Action, a coalition pushing for immigration reform. Along with Miner, mayors from Los Angeles, New York City, Pittsburgh, Boston and Chicago signed the letter. [I bet if you dug into this group, you would find it another George Soros-funded group.—ed]
Syracuse currently accepts between 1,100 and 1,200 refugees each year. Two organizations — Catholic Charities of Onondaga County and Interfaith Works CNY — resettle refugees in Syracuse.
“We have taken in refugees, and will help make room for thousands more,” the letter reads.”
See the letter at Syracuse.com. And here are the 18 cities which need new mayors!
Be sure to check out the hundreds of comments this story generated. I skimmed some and it sure looks like Mayor Miner’s constituents aren’t too thrilled by her invitation.
If you live in any of those 18 cities be sure the citizens there know what their mayor is doing.
Addendum: I just remembered, you can go to this post from a few days ago to see if your city is already getting Syrian Muslims. Note to Catholic Charities, of the 1,700 plus Syrians who were admitted to the US so far, 43 were Christians and there was 1 (one!) Catholic in the bunch.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Dayton, OH mayor: Bring us some Syrian (Muslim) refugees! Congressman says NO way!
Invasion of Europe: In Germany they are all claiming to be Syrians!
NY Times goes to Spartanburg, spin in first paragraph shows reporter’s bias
Drilling down on federal contractors that launder your money to local agencies—Twin Falls again
Hungarian foreign minister: Mass migration is the beginning of a new world order
The Obama, Kerry and Clinton legacy is clear. Their action and inaction has resulted in a refugee problem not seen since the second world war.The Iran nuclear debacle and the rise of the new Iranian ‘Persian Empire’ allied with a resurgent Russian Empire armed with nuclear weapons is taking shape.
Russia and Iran have joined forces to make certain Assad survives. Russian warplanes have been sent to Syria along with ground troops. Obama and Kerry continue their mantra that Assad must go but haven’t said when he should go. About 350,000 Syrians have been killed and over 4 million people are homeless. Russia and Iran are victorious in the face of Obama’s failure to assist the rebels when it was possible to do so.
Libya is now a failed State and home to IS and other Jihadists. The U.S. had no strategic interest in Libya but was induced by Sect. Clinton to destroy the Qaddafi regime to satisfy England and France.
Iran is now doing their own inspections and giving the U.N. nuclear agency whitewashed results. The agreement was supposed to allow unfettered inspection anywhere and anytime. The Iran debacle and rise of a new ‘Persian Empire’ is in the process of unfolding. Iran continues to threaten the U.S. and Israel. War will escalate between the various Muslim factions in the region and a world war is in the making.
The Nixon administration prevented Russia from becoming the hegemony in the Middle East 50 years ago in order to protect U.S. interests in this strategic region. It took the team of Obama, Kerry and Clinton about six years to destroy U.S. influence in the region.
We can only pray that a new president in 2017 will change the path the U.S. has followed over the last six and a half years and restore America’s strength and resolve to protect America and its allies.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Russia’s Return to Middle East – Yaroslav Trofimov
Russia’s return to the Middle East, with its lightning military deployment to Syria, is fundamentally different from the Cold War. Because Moscow is no longer constrained by ideology, it could ultimately prove more successful in challenging American influence in the region. “Russia today is not trying to spread its own model of life – in part because there is no such model,” said Andranik Migranyan, a professor at the Moscow State Institute for International Relations. A perception in the Middle East that the U.S. has pulled back and can’t be trusted to protect its allies helps lubricate Russian ambitions. (Wall Street Journal)
What Will the Russians Do in Syria? – Jonathan Spyer
The arrival of Russian personnel and equipment in Latakia province is intended to bolster the Syrian regime’s enclave in the western coastal area as part of a larger effort on the part of the regime and its allies to consolidate control over roughly 20% of Syria. The deployment suggests a limited ground component, with a greater focus on air operations to back beleaguered government forces and relieve pressure on Assad’s overstretched air force.
Ibrahim al-Amin, editor of the pro-Iran and pro-Hizbullah Al-Akhbar newspaper in Lebanon, announced the arrival of the “4+1” alliance. The “4” are Russia, Iran, Iraq and Syria, plus Hizbullah. According to Amin, this new alliance is to include the “sending of Russian and Iranian special forces to the areas controlled by…Assad.” The Russians will “play a prominent role on the ground and will participate in combat on the battlefield with their advanced weaponry by leading operations and taking part in artillery shelling [and] air raids.” The writer is director of the Rubin Center for Research in International Affairs and a fellow at the Middle East Forum. (Jerusalem Post)
Russia: The New Landlord in Syria – Yossi Mansharof
Russia has established a clear presence in Syria and is lending significant power to Assad. In addition, Iran has increased its military presence in Syria and, according to rebel reports, established an airbase near Homs for use by its own forces and Russia’s. Russian forces have already become a target for rebel groups. On Sept. 17, Jaysh al-Islam released a video documenting a Grad rocket attack it carried out against Russians at Latakia airport. The writer is a researcher at the Ezri Center for Iran and Persian Gulf Studies at the University of Haifa. (Israel Hayom)
He seems to delight in making it absolutely clear to the world just how spectacularly he fooled Barack Obama and John Kerry, and got what he wanted out of them without being diverted from his genocidal plans to the slightest degree.
“Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei In Article Marking Hajj: ‘The Idols Will Be Shattered,’” MEMRI, September 24, 2015:
On September 23, 2015, to mark the annual Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei published an article on his website Farsi.Khamenei.ir titled “The Idols Will Be Shattered,” accompanied by an image of a shattered Statue of Liberty.
Following are excerpts from his article:
“… The study of the lesson [of the Hajj], and implementing it, are the source of a blessing that could renew the lives of the Muslims, bring them prosperity, and save them from the troubles that afflict them, in this era and any other. The idol of the soul, the idol of pride, [and] the idol of sexual lust; the idol of tyranny and subservience; the idol of global tyranny [i.e. the U.S.]; the idol of sloth and irresponsibility; and the other idols that shame the precious human soul – a plan that will spring forth from the depths of the heart will shatter them. Then, liberty, honor, and health will replace dependence, hardship, and humiliation.
“Oh brothers and sisters making the pilgrimage from every nation and every country, delve deeply into the word [i.e. “hajj”] that teaches the divine wisdom; examine precisely the source of the Islamic world’s troubles, particularly in western Asia and in North Africa; define for yourselves a mission and a responsibility in accordance with [your] potential and individual and public tools; and exert yourself in them.
“In these days, the evil policy of America in this region is causing war and bloodshed, destruction, displacement, poverty, backwardness, and religious and sectarian division. On the other hand are the crimes and occupying activity of the Zionist regime in Palestine, which have reached the height of injustice and crime. [The Zionist regime] continually disrespects Al-Aqsa Mosque and tramples the blood and money of the oppressed Palestinian people.
“You Muslim [pilgrims] – this issue is your top priority. You must ponder it, and know that with which you are charged under [the law of] Islam. The senior clerics, politicians, and cultural figures have a weightier mission, in the fulfillment of which, unfortunately, they are remiss. Instead of dealing with sparking religious schism, instead of remaining passive in the face of the enemy, and instead of engaging in trivial matters, the clerics, politicians, and cultural figures [respectively] must all identify the great pain of the Islamic world, and must accept and implement the mission with which God has charged them.
“These events that evoke weeping and that are taking place in the region – in Iraq, in Yemen, in Bahrain, in the West Bank, in Gaza, and elsewhere in Asia and Africa – are the greatest woes of the Islamic ummah.
“The plots of the global tyranny [i.e. the U.S.] in this matter must be identified, and ways to resolve [this matter] must be considered. The nations must demand this of their governments, and the governments must be true to their responsibilities…”
“Signed, Ali Khamenei
“September 18, 2015.”
RELATED ARTICLES:
Pope Francis’ Sins of Omission
Art Garfunkel Issues HUGE Statement on Muslims That Will Get Him Labled “Hater” for Sure
Cardinal Danneels admits: “Mafia” club brought down Benedict XVI to make Church “much more modern”
Clockmaker Ahmed Mohamed’s family says he has been “severely traumatized,” hires lawyers
One of our readers alerted me to this excellent interview on Newsmax TV of Brigitte Gabriel, ACT for America president and founder, who discusses the refugee resettlement crisis that America faces on the Steve Malzberg show with guest host Dennis Michael Lynch.
Many of our readers are familiar with the work of Dennis Michael Lynch because he traveled around the country a few years ago with his shocking documentary film ‘They come to America.’
Watch the interview below. The working group she mentions is here.
2016 Presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz has joined Donald Trump and Ben Carson* in expressing alarm about the Obama Administration plans to begin a large scale movement of Syrian (mostly Muslim) refugees to your towns and cities. However, he has gone one step further and has written to key players in the decision-making process and wants answers to many of the questions we have.
Cruz: Taxpayer dollars should not be spent to import terrorism.
Remember that the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest will be holding a hearing on the Obama Administration’s Determination for FY 2016 that has as of this writing declared that we would be taking 10,000 (or more) Syrians to become permanent residents and ultimately citizens of the US starting a week from today. Senator Cruz is a member of that subcommittee.
Here is his press release yesterday on the matter:
Sen. Cruz: The Refugee Flow Out of Syria Must Be Treated as a National Security Risk
Sends letter to department heads requesting information on policies admitting Syrian refugees to the U.S.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) today sent a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson, Secretary of State John Kerry, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey. In his letter, Sen. Cruz acknowledges the need to address the humanitarian crisis in the region, but also shares grave concerns regarding the Administration’s intent to import tens of thousands of individuals from Syria and elsewhere who have not been properly vetted for ties to ISIS, al Qaeda, al Nusra and other radical Islamic terrorist groups.
“In the current threat environment – with an Administration that seems more intent on responding to the interests of the world than the needs of the American people – Congress has an obligation to be vocal and, if necessary, resist this effort. To be clear, this has nothing to do with immigration policy and everything to do with national security. Congress needs much more information before we can allow the United States to engage in a process that could wind up spending taxpayer dollars to import terrorism, much less fund that process,” Sen. Cruz wrote.
I urge all of you to read his 6-page letter addressed to Secretary of State John Kerry and to the heads of the Justice Department, Homeland Security Department and the FBI seeking detailed information on how this decision was made and especially on the security screening practices used that would assure the safety of the American people.
I’m going to be checking to see if the Senate hearing, a week from today, will be live-screened and will let you know.
Get involved!
Is your US Senator on the Subcommittee? Go here and have a look. If so, you need to express your concern about Obama’s plan which could see your town (go here for cities that have already begun receiving mostly Muslim Syrians) become a resettlement site for refugees from the Middle East. By the way, see Daniel Greenfield yesterday—best way to assure we don’t get terrorists, halt Muslim immigration to America!
And, don’t forget the on-going grassroots campaign, here, to halt funds in the CR (Continuing Resolution) for the resettlement of Syrian refugees.
*Does anyone know of any other 2016 Presidential candidates besides Trump, Carson and Cruz who have made their position clear on NOT admitting (or going cautiously on admitting) Syrian refugees at this time?
On the Sunday, September 20, 2015 Lisa Benson Show we interviewed, David B. Rivkin, Jr. a noted Constitutional litigator, a partner in the Washington, DC office of the Baker Hostetler law firm. The topic was “Can the Senate Sue the President over his handling of the Iran Nuclear Deal?” Rivkin is also a Senior Fellow of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). He served in a variety of legal and policy positions in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush Administrations, including stints at the White House Counsel’s office, Office of the Vice President and the Departments of Justice and Energy. While in the government, he handled a variety of national security and domestic issues, including environmental and energy policy, tax, trade and constitutional issues. He is a much sought after as a media commentator on matters of constitutional and international law, as well as foreign and defense policy.
Rivkin recently won a landmark decision in the D.C. Federal District Court in the matter of House v. Burwell over the supremacy of Congressional appropriations authorities with regard to implementation of the Affordable Care Act that affirmed Congressional standing to bring such an action. He co-authored a September 6, 2015 Washington Post opinion article with Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) suggesting a possible suit by the Senate against the President for non–compliance with the language of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act requiring delivery of all requisite documents including the privileged IAEA side agreements. A September 10, 2015 WSJ op ed by Rivkin and Elizabeth Price Foley discussed how the successful House v. Burwell suit gave standing to Congress to bring possible litigation against the President. Moreover, the suit in the ACA matter had survived a motion to dismiss by the Administration. We have published similar proposals by Sklaroff and Bender for Senate litigation over the JCPOA unanimously endorsed by the UN Security Council on July 22, 2015.
The Sklaroff Bender proposal required the Senate to change Rule 22 to achieve cloture to cut off filibusters by Minority Democrats, before Majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) might offer up a resolution to treating the Iran nuclear agreement as a treaty under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution requiring a two thirds vote under the advise and consent of the Senate. However, to initiate that would have required McConnell to make changes in Rule 22 at the start of the 114th Congress in January 2015. Currently, to cut off debate requires 60 votes. Congressional Research Service reports on this issue indicated previous proposals reducing the threshold down in steps to a simple majority vote. A number of prominent conservative activists and organizations advocated such a change at the start of the new Congress but McConnell pushed back, arguing that Democrats would use the new rules once they returned to the Majority to quash Republican concerns in the future.
The Senate Republican majority failed in a last move to upend the Iran Nuclear deal. As reported by the AP, a Senate vote on a resolution requiring Iran to recognize Israel as a quid pro quo to lifting sanctions failed once again to reach the 60 vote’s threshold. The vote was 53 to 45 before the deadline of September 17th under the Corker-Cardin Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said, in an AP report on the Administration’s start to implement the JCPOA, the deal “likely will be revisited by the next commander-in-chief.” The AP reportedHouse Speaker John Boehner suggesting that possible litigation might be an option. Other Senators and Members of Congress have suggested renewal of the Iran Sanctions Act of 2006 before it sunsets in 2016.
Watch this mid-April 2015 Wall Street Journal interview with David B. Rivkin, Esq. He had presciently predicted the problems confronting Congress under the Corker-Cardin Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act to pass resolutions rejecting the JCPOA.
During the Lisa Benson Show interview, Rivkin suggested that the President had violated Coker-Cardin by not delivering all of the requisite information, including the IAEA side agreements with Iran. As a result of this violation, the Congressional review period has never started and, consistent with the statutory language of Corker Cardin, the President’s authority to lift any sanctions against Iran or unblock any frozen Iranian funds has been vitiated. Rivkin expressed the view that, if the President were to indicate that he intends to lift sanctions, or unblock frozen assets, this decision can be challenged in court, either by the House or the Senate, or the States. Listen to the Rivkin interview on the Lisa Benson Show sound cloud, here.
Rivkin and colleague Lee Casey wrote about that possibility in a July 26, 2015, Wall Street Journal opinion article, “The Lawless Underpinnings in the Iran Nuclear Deal“. They argued:
The Obama end-run around the Constitution could yet be blocked if states exercise their own sanctions regimes …The administration faces another serious problem because the deal requires the removal of state and local Iran-related sanctions. That would have been all right if Mr. Obama had pursued a treaty with Iran, which would have bound the states, but his executive-agreement approach cannot pre-empt the authority of the states.
That leaves the states free to impose their own Iran-related sanctions, as they have done in the past against South Africa and Burma. The Constitution’s Commerce Clause prevents states from imposing sanctions as broadly as Congress can. Yet states can establish sanctions regimes—like banning state-controlled pension funds from investing in companies doing business with Iran—powerful enough to set off a legal clash over American domestic law and the country’s international obligations. The fallout could prompt the deal to unravel.
An explanation of the JCPOA State Sanctions impasse was outlined in a Steptoe International Compliance blog on August 15, 2015, “The JCPOA and State Sanctions” by Bibek Pandy:
The Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) does not say much about Iran sanctions imposed by US state governments. Almost two dozen states (including New York, California and Florida) have passed laws that in some form (i) ban the awarding of government contracts to companies tied to Iran, and/or (ii) prohibit public funds from investing in companies doing certain types of business in Iran. These state restrictions can be more extensive in scope than US federal sanctions. For example, some state restrictions (e.g. in Florida) attach automatically to the parent entity of the company who engages in certain Iran activities. Laws in many states provide for the lifting of Iran sanctions when the President removes Iran from the list of countries that support terrorism; but the JCPOA does not do that, and, as a result, Iran sanction laws in most states will remain intact.
[…]
Companies considering engaging in activity authorized under the JCPOA need to be still mindful of non-federal Iran sanctions. In particular, state government contractors with Iran links should review state procurement laws before engaging in activities permitted by the JCPOA. Furthermore, contractors can face civil penalties in many states for providing false certifications related to their Iran activities. The bar for Iran-related disqualification in some states is relatively low, and the JCPOA does not change that.
David B. Rivkin, Jr., Esq.
Following the Lisa Benson Show, David Rivkin and this writer held a conversation to explore the possibilities of a state level initiative. Florida Attorney General (AG) Pam Bondi led a filing made in the 1st Federal District Court in Pensacola on behalf of Florida and more than two dozen other State AGs endeavoring to overturn the Affordable Care Act. Federal Judge Vincent heard oral arguments and ruled on the matter sending it ultimately to the 11th Circuit in Atlanta. Rivkin thinks that a similar action could be mounted by Florida and a few other states in the same legal venue, the 1st District Court. The filing might be based on existing Florida sanction law passed under the federal 2010 Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act (CISADA) supplemented by an Executive Order.
The State cause of action, according to Rivkin, could be filed in a matter of weeks, potentially forestalling the release of sanctions before the implementation date under JCPOA, December 15, 2015. As indicated in a September 11, 2015 FDD memo by Dubowitz, Fixler, et.al. the subsequent release of upwards of $120 billion of sequestered funds in several Asian banks would take an additional six months. Thus the Rivkin state litigation proposal, if implemented promptly, might possibly stop the release of Iran nuclear sanctions.
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.
Bravo. Islamic law infringes upon the freedom of speech, forbidding criticism of Islam. Islamic law denies equality of rights to women. Islamic law denies equality of rights to non-Muslims. If a Muslim renounced all this, he or she could be an effective Constitutional ruler, but in today’s politically correct climate, no one is even likely to ask for such a renunciation. Instead, no one even acknowledges that these really are elements of Islamic law. Carson is right, and deserves the gratitude of every free American for refusing to back down before the authoritarian, thuggish forces that work so actively to demonize and marginalize anyone and everyone who speaks honestly about Islam, Sharia, and the jihad threat.
“Carson doubles down on no Muslims in the White House,” by Jonathan Easley, The Hill, September 20, 2015:
Republican presidential hopeful Ben Carson is standing by his view that a Muslim should not be president of the United States, telling The Hill in an interview on Sunday that whoever takes the White House should be “sworn in on a stack of Bibles, not a Koran.”
Carson ignited a media firestorm in a Sunday morning interview with Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press,” in which he said he “would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.”
“I absolutely would not agree with that,” Carson said.
In an interview with The Hill, Carson opened up about why he believes a Muslim would be unfit to serve as commander in chief.
“I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country,” Carson said, referencing the Islamic law derived from the Koran and traditions of Islam. “Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.”
Carson said that the only exception he’d make would be if the Muslim running for office “publicly rejected all the tenants of Sharia and lived a life consistent with that.”
“Then I wouldn’t have any problem,” he said.
However, on several occasions Carson mentioned “Taqiyya,” a practice in the Shia Islam denomination in which a Muslim can mislead nonbelievers about the nature of their faith to avoid religious persecution.
“Taqiyya is a component of Shia that allows, and even encourages you to lie to achieve your goals,” Carson said.
Pushing back at the media firestorm over his remarks, Carson sought to frame himself as one of the few candidates running for president willing to tell hard truths.
“We are a different kind of nation,” Carson said. “Part of why we rose so quickly is because we wouldn’t allow our values or principles to be supplanted because we were going to be politically correct. … Part of the problem today is that we’re so busy trying to be politically correct, that we lose all perspective.”
Carson told The Hill that the question of a Muslim president is largely “irrelevant” because no Muslims are running in 2016. He said the question, which Todd is posing to all of the Republican presidential hopefuls who go on his show, “may well have been” gotcha journalism meant to trip the candidates up.
However, he acknowledged the question “served a useful purpose by providing the opportunity to talk about what Sharia is and what their goals are.”
“So often we get into these irrelevant things, because obviously if a Muslim was running for president, there would be a lot more education about Sharia, about Taqiyya,” Carson said….
RELATED ARTICLES:
Nigeria: Islamic State murder 85 in series of jihad bombings
The Hon. James M. Inhofe
205 Russell Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
The Hon. James Lankford
316 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
The Hon. Markwayne Mullin
1113 Longworth House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515
Gentlemen:
As a concerned constituent, I would like to express my concern over the apparent unconcern of the Congress for what is perhaps the greatest danger our nation has ever faced. I refer, of course, to the dangers posed by the ever-increasing “invasion” of radical Islamists into our country.
Although there are approximately 1.4 billion Muslims on Earth, we are told that we should not be overly concerned because only about 5% of them are radicalized, hell-bent on killing as many non-Muslims… me and you and our families… as possible. Of course, 5% of 1.4 billion comes to roughly 70 million terrorists and suicide bombers. During World War II, the combined military forces of Germany, Japan, and Italy numbered only 34.1 million combatants.
In the years immediately following World War II, our principal internal security threat came from the international communist conspiracy, represented domestically by the Communist Party, USA. It was the stated purpose of the communist conspiracy to seek the destruction of our constitutional republic through any means necessary, including force and violence. In response, the U.S. Congress took appropriate steps to eradicate the clear and present danger posed by the communist conspiracy through passage of the Communist Control Act of 1954, outlawing communism in the United States.
But now, in the closing years of the 20th century and the early years of the 21st century, we find ourselves endangered internally by an enemy far more numerous and far more deadly than was posed by the presence of communists in our midst. Yet, it appears as if the Congress prefers to take the politically correct approach to radical Islam, treating radical Islamists as if they are just another religious sect with First Amendment rights and privileges.
Islam is not a “religious denomination” in the generally accepted sense of the term. Instead, it is a complete social, economic, legal, political, and military entity with a religious component. As such, it does not merit First Amendment protections under the U.S. Constitution, and it cannot be allowed to impose itself as a protected political and religious institution within our borders.
As we see endless streams of Muslim “asylum seekers” crossing the Mediterranean from North Africa into Italy and Spain, and as we see hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Muslims from Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and other Middle Eastern nations flooding across Eurasia, overrunning police and military forces of the invaded countries on their way to sanctuary in Western Europe, we know that we are witnessing the greatest human migration in history… a transmigration of cultures that is certain to devour Christianity, Judaism, and the richness of Western culture. Unless we take steps to return the waves of Islamists, who kill and rape their way across civilized nations, to their own section of the Earth, none of what we have known as western civilization will exist a decade or two from now. Just imagine the world that our children and grandchildren will inherit if we fail to take appropriate action now, while we still can.
What I suggest is that the Congress rewrite sections of the Communist Control Act of 1954, a statute that has not been overturned by the courts and is still in force, to read as follows:
SEC. 1. PURPOSE. The Congress hereby finds and declares that certain organizations exist within our borders which, although purporting to be political or religious in nature, are in fact instrumentalities of foreign political or religious entities or ideologies whose purpose it is to overthrow the Government of the United States by any available means, including force and violence. Such organizations operate as authoritarian dictatorships within our borders, demanding for themselves the rights and privileges generally accorded to all political parties and religious denominations, but denying to all others the liberties guaranteed to them by the U.S. Constitution.
SEC. 2. PROSCRIBED ORGANIZATIONS. Any political or religious organization as described herein, or any successors or affiliates of such organizations, regardless of the assumed name, whose object or purpose it is to overthrow the government of the United States, or to force the political or religious conversion of its people by force or violence, or threats thereof, are not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or its political subdivisions; and whatever rights, privileges, and immunities heretofore granted to said religious or political organizations, or any subsidiary or affiliate organizations, by reason of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, are hereby rescinded: Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as amending the Internal Security Act of 1950, as amended.
My question is this: If we could find the courage in 1954 to outlaw an ideology that sought only to convert us through political subversion, why can we not find the courage in 2015 to outlaw a foreign ideology that offers us only a choice between religious subservience and death… the ultimate Hobson’s Choice. I would appreciate having your specific reactions to my concerns. I would prefer not to have generic boilerplate responses prepared by staff members.
Respectfully,
Paul R. Hollrah
Here is the brief story at the Daily Mail:
Police are investigating whether an asylum seeker living in Germany fought for Islamic State, it has been reported.
The Syrian man, who lives in a shelter in the north-east region of Brandenburg, allegedly told other refugees he had been a member of ISIS.
German newspaper Welt am Sonntag, reported that the man was filmed boasting about his blood-thirsty past.
Investigators are now trying to determine whether the Syrian was a member of ISIS, the newspaper reported.
Germany’s Federal Criminal Police Office said the suspect was filmed by other refugees boasting about having killed for the terrorist group.
The Guardian reported overnight that European leaders will gather on Wednesday to try to figure out what the h*** they are going to do about the invasion. (not their words!)
See our extensive archive on the ‘Invasion of Europe’ going back years, here. Even casual observers have seen this crisis building for a long time and the chickens in the EU leadership did nothing to get in front of it.
Our archive on Germany is here. Previous posts on Merkel are here.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Compassion As A Weapon: Politicizing The Syrian Refugee Crisis
Hillary says U.S. should admit 65,000 Syrians in coming year
Kerry now says 85,000 total refugees for FY2016; Hillary still wants 65,000 Syrian Muslims
Ben Carson says a Muslim should not be President of the U.S.; CAIR comes out with both barrels
Canada to take 10,000 Syrian refugees, but not necessarily UN-chosen ones!
What could possibly go wrong? Last February the Islamic State said it would soon flood Europe with as many as 500,000 refugees. But they couldn’t actually be doing it now, could they? Inconceivable! And the Lebanese Education Minister recently said that there were 20,000 jihadis among the refugees in camps in his country. But they couldn’t be heading to Europe, could they? Inconceivable! The 80% of migrants who claim to be fleeing the war in Syria but aren’t from Syria at all couldn’t have hijrah or jihad on their minds, could they? Inconceivable!
“US to Accept 85,000 Refugees in 2016, 100,000 in 2017, Kerry Says,” by Ken Dilanian, Associated Press, September 20, 2015:
Trying to address the Syrian refugee crisis, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry announced Sunday that the United States would significantly increase the number of worldwide refugees it takes in over the next two years, though not by nearly the amount many activists and former officials have urged.
The U.S. will accept 85,000 refugees from around the world next year, up from 70,000, and that total would rise to 100,000 in 2017, Kerry said at news conference with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier after the two discussed the mass migration of Syrians fleeing their civil war.
Many, though not all, of the additional refugees would be Syrian, American officials have said. Others would come from strife-torn areas of Africa. The White House had previously announced it intended to take in 10,000 additional Syrian refugees over the next year.
Asked why the U.S. couldn’t take more, Kerry cited post-Sept. 11 screening requirements and a lack of money made available by Congress. “We’re doing what we know we can manage immediately,” he said.
The migrants would be referred by the U.N. refugee agency, screened by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and resettled around the U.S.
“This step is in keeping with America’s best tradition as a land of second chances and a beacon of hope,” Kerry said. Kerry also met with some refugee families on the wooded, lakeside resort-style campus of the foreign ministry’s education center outside Berlin.
Congressional approval is not required for the expansion of resettlement slots, though Congress would have to appropriate money to pay for the additional effort. Some Republican lawmakers have expressed concerns that Islamic State militants could seek to slip into Europe or the U.S. posing as migrants….
RELATED ARTICLES:
Compassion As A Weapon: Politicizing The Syrian Refugee Crisis
Carson says Muslim shouldn’t be President; Hamas-linked CAIR demands he withdraw
Eiffel Tower closed to visitors after terror suspect with “large rucksack” climbs it