Bishop Mark Arndt: A Rare Example of a Christian Hierarch Speaking the Truth about Islam

/in , , , , /by

Islam is at its core anti-human… Reading the Quran, you will see that all of this [extremism] lies at the foundation of Islam. One must look truth in the eye: this is all anti-human, it is directed against humanity… Yes, there were times when Muslims tried to live in peace with their neighbors, they even acknowledged that we Christians are people, too. But for many, those times have passed, and now they reveal who they really are.  

— Archbishop Mark (Arndt) of Berlin (Full interview below.)

Regular readers of Jihad Watch are likely familiar with the refusal of Roman Catholic bishops to address the global issue of Muslim persecution of Christians and Jews (and other non-Muslims) and its grounding in the Quran and the example of Muhammad. The prime example may be that of Bishop Robert McManus of Worcester Mass., whose infamous quote reads more like a parody from the Onion every day:

Talk about extreme, militant Islamists and the atrocities that they have perpetrated globally might undercut the positive achievements that we Catholics have attained in our inter-religious dialogue with devout Muslims.

Pope Francis of course leads this disturbing trend, his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudiumincluding the emphatic affirmation that  “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.”

It seems many Muslims have failed to read that particular epistle.

Sadly, things are not much different in the Orthodox Church. The world’s second largest Christian communion, comprising between 225 and 300 million members (source), retains a dwindling remnant in the Middle East, the “cradle of Christianity,” and is one of the main bodies suffering most from the resurgent global jihad.

Perhaps because of this suffering Levantine presence, there exists in world Orthodoxy what I would call a “latent dhimmitude.”

Globally, Orthodox Christian leaders, from priests, professors and theologians to bishops and patriarchs (bishops over a national Church, such as Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia), almost to a man shy away from ever openly ascribing the motivation behind Muslim terrorism and persecution of Christians to Islam, and instead offer unconvincing, pious platitudes, such as from Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, who has written of a “dialogue of loving truth” with Islam, of Orthodoxy having for centuries “coexisted peacefully” with Islam, and of an “interfaith commitment… still felt and lived by Greeks [and] Turks.” ( Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew,Encountering the Mystery, Doubleday, 2008, pp xxxvii, 196, 174.)

Yet he writes this in spite of fourteen centuries of Islamic jihad against Christians, the enslavement of the Greek Orthodox after the conquering of Constantinople in 1453, and the blood-stained parade of neo-martyrs from the 15th to 19th centuries (including dozens of Ecumenical Patriarchs); in spite of the Turkish Muslim genocide against Orthodox Christians from 1894 to 1922, in which over 4 million Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians and others were killed; in spite of the Turkish Muslim pogroms against the Greek Orthodox (e.g., Istanbul, 1955) up through the present day, which includes the conversion of the great Hagia Sophia Church of Constantinople into a mosque, together with numerous other ‘Hagia Sophia’ churches throughout Turkey.

Here’s another whopper:

“Christians and Muslims are two lungs of one Eastern body,” the Greek Orthodox Patriarch said, “and we condemn anything that harms the reputation of the forgiving Islamic religion, with which we have experienced the peace and fraternity.” (Daily Star)

I am not familiar with any “forgiving Islamic religion.”  I am familiar with the supremacist and militant Islamic religion, whose holy book and prophet have set forth commands which determine its reputation:

Fight against those who believe not in Allah…  (Quran 9:29)

Kill the mushrikun [unbelievers] wherever you find them…  (Quran 9:5)

I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes. (Quran 8:12)

“I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah…” (Hadith from Sahih Bukhari, cited inReliance of the Traveller, Entry on Jihad, o9.0, o9.1, o9.8, o9.9.)

Here is an especially scandalous statement from a few decades ago:

“The Prophet Muhammad is an apostle, He is a man of God, who worked for the Kingdom of God… When I speak against Islam, then I am not found in agreement with God.” — Patriarch Parthenius of Alexandria (Orthodoxos Typos 854, May 1982)

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Patriarchs and bishops who seek to cover over the anti-human bloodlust inherent in Islam do not help, they merely confuse, frustrate and demoralize the faithful, who see for themselves what Islam is all about. The faithful need clear Christian teaching and inspiring examples of confessors and martyrs, to help them stand firm in their own trials, when the challenge comes to their doors.

This is why it is essential to extol those rare Christian hierarchs, like Bishop Mark of Berlin, who choose to ignore the politically correct climate of the day, and instead pattern their statements after fearless Church teachers of every age, such as Sophronius of Jerusalem (7th c.), John of Damascus (8th c.), Gregory Palamas, (14th c.), Kosmas of Aitolia (18th c.), Fr. Seraphim Rose (20th c.), and New-Martyr Fr. Daniil Sysoev (21st c.).

The below article, which I originally posted a year ago, is worth revisiting in the hopes that other Christian leaders — whether Catholic, Coptic, Protestant or Orthodox — will take courage and find again that authentic Christian voice in this titanic struggle against the temporal and spiritual tyranny of Islamic jihad.

Interview with Archbishop Mark (Arndt),  Pravmir,  July 31, 2014

Q – How should Christians react to the terrible epidemic of the genocide of our brothers and sisters in Christ in Syria, Metochia, Kosovo and Serbia? Is this active Islamization or the actions of radical extremists, bandits who only assume the mantle of Islam? His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia, during a Liturgy in Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow read to his Russian flock the epistle of the Antiochian Patriarch, in which he painfully called to the whole world for help, stressing that the situation is at such a horrifying stage that help is needed not only through prayers to God, but in action. But in Christian society the reigning opinion is that we can help exclusively by prayer.

A – I reject the expression “help exclusively by prayer.” That we Christians are only capable of prayer is a false notion. Of course, prayer is our foundation and greatest strength. But if we think that all we can do is pray, we will go astray. Yes, we must pray, but we must also understand that people are often forced by circumstances to soften one’s language. If the Antiochian Patriarch says this, he bases it on the experience of his own nation, where Christians and Muslims always lived in peace. I think that it is incorrect to say that there are only extremists at work there. 

Reading the Quran, you will see that all of this lies at the foundation of Islam. Extremism exists, of course. Other Eastern hierarchs openly state that they have known about this particular aspect of Islam all their lives. I often serve in Jerusalem. There, for instance, on the feast of the Holy Trinity, right next to the church a muezzin cries from his tower that they believe in the One God Who has no children, no Son and Holy Spirit, etc. He has no compunction to do so, though these people are not really extremists. What is this? Open, unabashed propaganda against Christianity! They know full well what they do, spewing these slogans during the main Christian holiday of the Pentecost, the celebration of the birth of the Church Herself.

Islam is at its core anti-human. Look at Ramadan—this is the mortification of the human being, of the human body. I saw how people were taken to hospitals during their observance of Ramadan. All day they eat nothing, drink nothing even during baking heat, and at night the cram there stomachs to the point of losing consciousness—it is madness! One must look truth in the eye: this is all anti-human, it is directed against humanity.

Yes, there were times when Muslims tried to live in peace with their neighbors, they even acknowledged that we Christians are people, too. But for many, those times have passed, andnow they reveal who they really are.

Q – In other words, when some say that what is happening in Syria and other fundamentally Christian nations, it is only political, not a religious war against Christianity, it is untrue? Regardless, can we say that the Christians who are murdered for their faith today are martyrs.

A – There is an intentional war being waged against Christians. Kosovo was the first in the list of such genocide from Christian territory. Then Chechnya. Understand what happened, a Christian nation was simply given away to the Muslims. The destruction of churches continues, tortures, wild fanaticism, murder. Kosovo, Chechnya, Syria, Egypt…

Q – The next goal for these people, whether they are extremists or not, is to declare Russia Muslim. What are we to do, strengthen our prayers?

A – The most important thing is to be real Christians. This means constant participation in the Mysteries of the Church. If the Lord grants someone the crown of martyrdom, it means the person earned it and must accept it with dignity.

EDITORS NOTE: Ralph Sidway is an Orthodox Christian researcher and writer, and author of Facing Islam: What the Ancient Church has to say about the Religion of Muhammad.  He operates the Facing Islam blog.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama admits that lifting of sanctions will increase Iran’s ability to finance jihad terrorists

Massachusetts convert to Islam indicted on jihad terror charges

What’s behind The American Jewish Divide on the Iran Nuclear Deal?

/in , , , , /by
datauri-file

Council of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations (CPMAJO) Pres. Stephen M. Greenblatt, Executive Vice Chairman Malcolm Hoenlein with Secretary of State John Kerry , Manhattan, July 24, 2015. Source: CPMAJO and Times of Israel

Yesterday, Secretary of State John Kerry flew up to New York to brief  skeptical leaders of major American Jewish organizations on the Administration-backed Iran Nuclear Agreement announced on July 14th. This followed Thursday’s presentation before a truculent Senate Foreign Relations Committee Iran nuclear  review with Kerry, Energy Secretary Earnest Moniz and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew. A provocative question by Senate panel member, Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio, prompted Kerry to issue a warning to Israel not to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program. Kerry was also caught touting J Street propaganda suggesting that former Israeli security officials from Shin Bet and Mossad considered it a good deal. As reflected in a Times of Israel (TOI) report on Kerry’s briefings, American Jewish leaders expressed concerns about his inability to answer their questions.

However, a poll released Thursday by the Los-Angeles based Jewish Journal  suggested that virtually half of American Jews backed Obama on the Iran nuclear deal in contrast to less than 28 percent of  all Americans. Thus, confirming the deepening American Jewish divide over support for Israel discussed at length in Ambassador Michael Oren’s memoir, Ally. The TOI article on the Manhattan briefings by Kerry to American Jewish leaders noted the results of the Jewish Journal– sponsored survey:

According to the [Jewish Journal] survey, 49 percent of American Jews support the deal and 31 percent oppose it. Among all Americans, 28 percent support the deal and 24 percent oppose it.

Jewish Journal survey of American Jews on Iran nuclear deal

L.A. Jewish Journal survey of American Jews on Iran nuclear deal, July 23, 2015.

The Times of Israel reported comments from participants in the briefings by Kerry:

Among the issues raised were reports of provisions to shorten the embargoes on conventional weapons and ballistic missiles and secret accords dealing with inspections at Iran’s Parchin military base and the possible military dimensions (PMD) of Iran’s past nuclear activities.

“It was a very interesting exchange,” one attendee told the Times of Israel. “We spoke rather frankly and he gave his assessment. Some of the things we agree with and some of the things people disagreed with, but that is the nature of this debate.”

“People remained concerned. He filled in some blanks and on some issues people still feel quite differently,” the attendee added. “Whether you agree with his answers or not, it was an important exchange.”

The meeting with Conference of Presidents involved more than 100 participants from a wide range of Jewish groups including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), incoming Anti-Defamation League Executive Director Jonathan Greenblatt, Yeshiva University President Richard Joel, and representatives of the Jewish Federations of North America. AIPAC is vehemently opposed to the agreement. It has launched a massive lobbying campaign in a bid to see it stonewalled by Congress, which is currently reviewing the terms of the deal.

Let’s look at the nuances of the Jewish Journal Iranian nuclear deal survey findings:

The LA Jewish Journal Survey asked respondents’ views on “an agreement … reached in which the United States and other countries would lift major economic sanctions against Iran, in exchange for Iran restricting its nuclear program in a way that makes it harder for it to produce nuclear weapons.” Almost half – 49 percent of American Jews – voiced support, and 31 percent opposed. Jews differ from the national population. Of all respondents in our national survey, only 28 percent support the deal, 24 percent oppose and the rest (48 percent) “don’t know enough to say.”

[…]

As a group, Jews hold these supportive views of the agreement, notwithstanding their mixed views regarding its outcomes. Asked whether “this agreement would prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons over the next 10 years or so,” only 42 percent are somewhat confident or very confident, while 54 percent are not so confident or not confident at all. A slim plurality believes the agreement will lead to more rather than less stability in the Middle East (46 percent versus 41 percent), but a wider margin believes the deal will make Israel more endangered (49 percent) rather than safer (33 percent), almost the same as in the U.S. survey (48 percent versus 32 percent respectively).

But even with their misgivings, Jews overwhelmingly think that, in retrospect, the idea of the U.S. conducting negotiations with Iran was a good one (59 percent) rather than a bad one (19 percent).

Shoshana Bryen jpg (3)

Shoshana Bryen, The Jewish Policy Center

Shoshana Bryen of the Jewish Policy Center in our 1330amWEBY interview in a forthcoming August 2015 New English Review article commented about the American Jewish divide:

In the Jewish community there is an element that believes any deal is better than no deal. The President said, “Please think of the alternative to this deal.  Think of it,” he said. Clearly, he was leaning in the direction that without the deal, there is war.  There is a group of people in the Jewish community that thinks you must do anything you can, to prevent war.  Anything, everything.  If you give up sanctions and accept demands its okay, because you’re not having war. There’s another group of people in the Jewish community, that says, if you give up everything, you’re going to end up with war anyway, but from a less advantageous position.

Ted Belman of the Jerusalem based blog Israpundit was “shocked” by the L.A. Jewish Journal survey findings pointing to the Shmuel Rosner Journal article, The growing divide between Jewish Americans and Jewish Israelis. 

Rosner opined:

The Jews of Israel oppose the agreement with Iran. The Jews of America support it. The just-released LA Jewish Journal survey turns an assumption into a fact: The two largest Jewish communities cannot agree on a major world development that could significantly change the state of the Jewish state.

Israel will discover today — much to many Israelis’ surprise (because they don’t much understand American Jews) — that it cannot count on the majority of American Jewry to fight the battle against the agreement alongside it. A majority of American Jews will discover today that amid all the noise made by opponents of the deal, not much has changed for them as a group: They support President Barack Obama; they vote Democratic; they approve of the agreement. American Jews are just like Americans, as sociologist Steven Cohen, who oversaw the survey, writes: They are all skeptical about the deal, but their politics dictate the way they ultimately see it.

My response to Belman was The Jewish Journal publishers hew to a reform movement precept-to repair the world. Shmuel Rosner is a left-wing Israeli journalist who made career of viewing American Jews through that lens including opposition to Bibi and the settler movement. If you look at who consulted on this survey – the West Coast Reform seminary of UAHC- there are likely two biases in both framing questions and population sampling. The first is support for J Street among the reform movement leadership and seminary academics. There are 600 members of the J Street Rabbinic Cabinet largely drawn from the Reform movement pulpits in the U.S.  The second is the liberal reform readership of theJewish Journal editions across the U.S.  Increasingly, it seems liberal Jews view Israel as alien to their assimilationist values. That meme comes through in Michael Oren’s memoir.Ally.

Essentially, the Reform movement in the U.S. has returned to its traditional pre WWII anti- Zionist roots.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Florida: Stop Iran Nuke Deal Rally in Fort Lauderdale Highlights

/in , , /by

As we conclude our penultimate week we bring you the highlights of our Stop Iran Rally in Fort Lauderdale, FL and direct from Israel, Michael Ganoe, founder of Face Book – Insight to Israel and Hershey’s for Heroes.

Our Rally has some powerful moments and in Israel, Michael is a Christian who worked for many years in politics in Washington, D.C. but followed God’s call and packed up, moved to Israel, with NOTHING, and for the past few years has been an Ambassador of Good Will all over the great country of Israel.

Please follow Michael’s amazing work with the soldiers of the Israeli Defense Forces and support his work with a monthly donation that you can make on his Face Book page.

Et Tu, Schu?

/in , , , /by

“Schumer is not a Shomer” were the words emblazoned on dozens of placards that were held by some of the 12,000 people who flooded Times Square last week to protest the “Death to America/Death to Israel” deal that Barack Obama and his cronies made on July 14th with––to this day, to this hour––a palpably belligerent, anti-Western, anti-Semitic Iran.

The placards––and the demonstration in front of the senator’s New York City office the next day––were to implore him to stop evading the subject with mealy-mouthed language (“I’ll go through the agreement with a fine-tooth comb”) and to reject the deal outright, vote against it in Congress, and convince at least 13 of his colleagues on the left to vote against the horrific deal. Congress is now reviewing the deal and will vote on September 17, in less than 50 days.

In short, to block the Iran deal, 67 Senators need to vote against it; 59 Senators are already committed to doing just that; and 14 are undecided, Sen. Schumer among them.

New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind (D-Brooklyn) said that, “We have listened to Senator Schumer for years and how he takes every opportunity to explain the origin of his name Schumer and what it means for him to be a proud “Shomer”––which in Hebrew means protector. Now is the time to live up to your claim and put your words into action.”

Last week, The New York Post asked Sen. Schumer 10 key questions about Iran––including if he had any input into the agreement, what he thought of its 24-day advance notice for inspections, and whether the deal raises new concerns for Israel––none of which he has answered to this day!

To Schumer’s lame statement that he is “studying the issue,” the Post responded: “Studying the issue? Please. There’s nothing to study: Just nix the deal, Chuck….Schumer doesn’t need to `study’ the deal. He needs to study his conscience.”

Personally, I can hardly remember a Sunday-night news broadcast since Schumer was elected to the Senate in 1998 when he wasn’t in front of the camera proposing actions to keep his uber-left constituents happy.

He was Chuckie-on-the-spot when it appeared that Adidas might outsource production overseas, in a plant where Schumer said 100 workers were at risk. But for the past three years, as the ayatollahs have menacingly threatened to annihilate Israel, deadly silence from Schumer. One-hundred potential injuries more important than over-six-million deaths!

He was an early and enthusiastic backer of the national disaster known as Obamacare, and is a reliable opponent of guns, an advocate of open borders, and a full-throated supporter of abortion.

When the Planned Parenthood medical ghouls came out last week to reveal their sale of infant body parts (and the exquisite care taken to “crush” the fetus in strategic places, the better to preserve those parts), deadly silence from Schumer. I guess the 1.2-million fetuses destroyed each year in the U.S. are, in Schumer’s mind, equal to over-six-million expendable Israelis, not even worthy of mention.

But I digress. This article is not to discuss the, ahem, value systems of leftists.

CLAMMING UP

In June 2008––five months before Barack Obama began to occupy the White House––Senator Schumer wrote an op-ed in The Wall St. Journal, stating that cooperative economic sanctions from the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China could topple Iran’s theocratic government.

Clearly, the passage of time and his current position have changed his tune. Today, Schumer is the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, behind Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin. But Schumer has his eyes on a bigger prize, to replace Harry Reid in 2017.

So there you have it. Schumer’s dilemma is clear––to be a loyal lackey to Barack Obama, the better not to lose his potential position of power, or to be the New York Jewish Senator he was in the past, a vocal and impassioned supporter of Israel.

For a full three years, Senator Schumer has known about every facet of the deal being made by the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) P(for permanent members)5+1 group (the US, Russia, China, Britain and France, plus Germany).

  • Schumer knew that when Obama said that the final deal would only lift nuclear-related sanctions on Iran, it was a lie–– but he said nothing.
  • Schumer knew that when Obama said “U.S. sanctions on Iran for terrorism, human rights abuses, and ballistic missiles will remain in place under the deal,” it was a lie––but he said nothing.
  • Schumer knew that the promise to maintain sanctions on ballistic missile development was a lie–––but he said nothing.
  • Schumer knew that when Obama said the deal would make it nearly impossible for Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, police, intelligence services and paramilitary groups to do business, it was a lie—but he said nothing.
  • Schumer knew that Obama and Co. were keeping two key parts of the deal secret. As spelled out by blogger Jeff Dunetz, the two covert deals would be kept away from other nations from Congress, and from the American people. They include: (1) the inspection of the Parchin military complex and other Iranian military sites which are off-limits to nuclear inspectors under the agreement, sites long suspected of harboring both long-range ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons, and (2) and Iran’s failure to disclose its past nuclear-related military and procurement activities. As the national president of the Zionist Organization of America, Morton A. Klein, called the deal disturbing. “The U.S. and other powers having caved on every substantive issue which we were once assured would be included in the eventual agreement, like dismantling centrifuges, shuttering certain nuclear facilities, free and unfettered inspections, disclosure of past nuclear-related military and procurements activities, maintaining non-nuclear sanctions, and so on…” Yep––he said nothing.
  • Schumer knew that the deal gave Iran 24 days to allow any inspections of their nuclear facilities, more than ample time to clean them up––but he said nothing.
  • Schumer knew that Barack Obama, in order to bypass both the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Constitution he loathes, would send the agreement straight to that repository of socialists, communists, tin pot dictators, and anti-Semites on First Avenue, the United Nations, in order to make their approval “binding” upon all U.N. members, including the United States––but he said nothing.
  • Schumer knew that as a “signing bonus,” Iran–– already the world’s leading state sponsor of Islamic terrorism, which has violated 20 international treaties––is to receive $150-billion dollars in sanctions relief, with which no one doubts they will continue financing terrorist groups like ISIS and Hamas and Hezbollah, destabilizing Sunni Arab regimes, and calling incessantly for the death of all Jews, the annihilation of Israel, and the utter destruction of America––but he said nothing.
  • Most egregious, Schumer knew the most malevolent part of the deal, article 10, which promises to protect the Iran nuclear program from sabotage and attack, removing the last option Israel has to protect herself. The U.S. actually promised to intervene against Israel on Iran’s behalf! And Senator Schumer said nothing! Sec. of State John Kerry, the architect of this anti-American deal (surprise, surprise!) conceding to the Senate the other day that the US would defend Iran’s nuclear program from Israeli sabotage––but Schumer said nothing.

Silence, deafening silence, thundering silence, craven silence, immoral silence––week after week after month after month after year after year after year! Such is the picture of the abject lust for power, so overpowering that it eclipses even a vestige of the character and moral fiber that once existed.

A TIME OF RECKONING

Now is the time of reckoning, writes Jonathan S. Tobin in Commentary magazine online. “For once, Schumer must choose. It is one thing for those whose support for Israel has always been secondary to their left-wing ideology or pro-Obama partisanship (such as the J Street lobby or the National Jewish Democratic Council) to endorse this brazen act of appeasement. For Schumer, a man who has staked his career on being the shomer (guardian) of Israel’s security in Congress, it would be a stunning betrayal that he would never live down.”

Tobin then poses an ominous warning: “Even if [Schumer] chooses to vote in favor of a resolution that seeks to nullify the pact, he may also work behind the scenes to ensure that at least 34 Democrats back the president so as to ensure that an Obama veto won’t be overridden.”

Is there any doubt that Schumer––silent for three long years on this doomsday deal–is more than capable of this kind of treachery?

Rabbi Aryeh Spero, known as “America’s Rabbi,” is the author of Push Back and Why Israel Matters to You” and serves as the president of Caucus for America. Like Tobin, he questions Schumer’s seeming paralysis.

The Iran deal, he says, “is Plan A for the ultimate annihilation of Israel, annihilation through active offense and by making Israel’s defense impossible. To Iran, Mr. Obama has made the most earth-shattering compromises in the annals of history. Even Chamberlain did not provide Hitlerwith a $150 billion to arm–up.

“This whole deal would go nowhere, be dead on arrival, if the most powerful Democrat right now in the Senate would announce it as DOA,” Rabbi Spero continues. “That man is Sen. Chuck Schumer. Where is he? No one knows what he will do. Why should we be guessing? He should be out there, at this moment, saying No to this accord.  Why should the Israelis have to live another moment in fear and anxiety? Where is his compassion? Schumer should stifle the accord now!”

My friend Howard Bockner from Canada echoes the rabbi’s sentiments. “The US and Europe are now in bed with Iran. Israel––like the Jews in pre-war Europe––is expendable. And if Israel is made expendable you can be sure that Jews in the Diaspora will be next. That has been Obama’s Plan A all along––installing the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt to cancel the Israel-Egypt Treaty, which failed. So he doubled down on Plan B––knocking out Israel’s nuclear hegemony in the Middle East. He is also guaranteeing U.S. help to Iran against any sabotage of its nuclear facilities, i.e., putting Israel into a straight jacket.

“However, this has not all played out,” Bockner adds. “Saudi Arabia and Egypt, now two allies of Israel, will shortly get the bomb courtesy of the Russians (who don’t care who they sell to). Turkey, Algeria, and others will also be lining up for nukes, and the possibility of these weapons falling into the hands of non-state players will increase. Therefore, the likelihood of a nuclear disaster is now much closer.”

Plan A, indeed. There is no measuring the lengths and depths Obama will go to when it comes to defending his indefensible deal. According to Lee Smith at Tablet magazine, “Obama is using a dog-whistle. He’s hinting broadly at anti-Semitic conceits—like dual loyalties, moneyed interests, Jewish lobby—to scare off Democrats tempted to vote against the [deal] because they think it’s a bad deal. If they do come out against the agreement—if they line up, for instance, with the new organization AIPAC formed, Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran—to warn the public “about the dangers of the proposed Iran deal,” then he’s going to tar them as dual loyalists who are willing to send Americans out to make war on behalf of Jewish causes.

According to writer Michael Ledeen, it is the mullahs who did not sign the deal in Vienna. “They don’t want to make a deal with the Great American Satan, even though they do want the American concessions, above all the huge sums of money we’ve promised them. Now comes Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei…talking as if the agreement itself is in question.”

Imagine that…Khamenei rejects the deal, but Schumer has to “go through the agreement with a fine-tooth comb”!

You’d think that just as a practical matter, Schumer’s choice would be easy. As Ari Lieberman writes in Front Page magazine, “Schumer will be around long after Obama is gone and will have to deal with the mess that will inevitably occur when Iran cheats—and let’s be clear, Iran will cheat. From building secretive underground centrifuge facilities at Fordow to illicit procurement activities in Germany, the Islamic Republic’s history is replete with a record of cheating and fabrication.”

Military historian Victor Davis Hanson warns of the perils of appeasement, be they to countries, an Iran-obsessed resident of the White House and his trusty lapdogs, or a squishy senator.

“While members of the Obama administration are high-fiving each other over a deal with the Iranian theocracy, they should remember unchanging laws that will surely haunt the U.S. later on.

  • “First, appeasement always brings short-term jubilation at the expense of long-term security. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was a beloved peacemaker after the Munich Agreement of 1938 with Adolf Hitler but derided as a conceited fool and naif by May 1940.
  • “Second, the appeasement of autocrats always pulls the rug out from under domestic reformers and idealists. After the Western capitulation at Munich, no dissenter in Germany dared to question the ascendant dictatorship of Adolf Hitler.
  • “Third, appeasers always wrongly insist that the only alternative to their foolish concessions is war. Just the opposite is true.
  • “Fourth, beneficiaries grow to hate their appeasers. We should remember that Hitler called his Munich appeasers 1worms’ and pushed them even further.
  • “Fifth, allies are always the big losers in appeasement. Britain and France ensured the destruction of third-party Czechoslovakia by conceding to Hitler’s demands in 1938 — and doomed Poland in 1939.

“In 2015, we naively hail peace with honor, but by 2020, sadder and wiser, we will lament war and shame.”

WHAT TO DO?

A lawsuit by Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch seeks to block Barack Obama’s perfidious treaty with Iran from being unconstitutionally ratified. The lawsuit names U.S. Senators Marco Rubio and Bill Nelson and Congressman Patrick Murphy, who all voted for the bill, and Obama who signed it into law. These representatives acted in disregard of their obligations to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida is posted at www.FreedomWatchUSA.org. The U.S. Constitution empowers a president to make a treaty only if two-thirds of the U.S. Senate votes to ratify it. A president is delegated no other power in the Constitution to make any other form of international agreement. The agreement, Klayman says, will existentially endanger not only Israel but Europe and the United States.

In addition to the Times Square rally and protest in front of Sen. Schumer’s office, a groundswell of concerned citizens is flooding the White House, urging their elected representatives to vote AGAINST the Iran Nuclear Accord.

Here is the Capitol Hill Switchboard number is: 1-202-224-3121

Here is how to reach Senator Schumer’s office: 1-202-224-6542

Here’s how to reach Congressman Steve Israel: 1-201-225-3335

Suggestion: add the above two numbers to your smartphone and make it a point to call them every day until the vote. Takes two minutes!

  1. Call your local Congressperson: www.ContactingTheCongress.org
  2. Contact your Senators and Representatives: U.S. Senate: Senators of the 114th Congress
  3. Contact your Representatives here: U.S. House of Representatives Directory

Join the following organizations, which have been at the forefront of defending Israel and holding Schumer’s feet to the fire:

I didn’t mention Senator Kirsten Gillibrand because, as the NY Post says, she is simply Schumer’s “hapless little poodle.”

Jeffrey S. Wiesenfeld, a finance expert in NY City who organized and emceed the Times Square rally, said that he recently saw a picture of the gone-missing Gillibrand on the a milk carton. He exhorted the crowd to put pressure on Schumer to nix the Iran deal. “Chuck, this is your moment! This is your time to make the decision…or we will throw you the hell out of office!”

I also didn’t mention Hillary Clinton, who could not find it within her the other day to counter an anti-Semitic question with a defense of Israel. Except for her first run for the Senate in 2009, when she pandered shamelessly for Jewish votes, she has never been a friend of Jews or Israel, the latest proof being that she endorsed the genocidal Iran deal.

She is like Obama, who has been known to say “I’ve got Israel’s back.” How true. Both of them have put a big fat target on Israel’s back, this one earmarked for nuclear war heads!

RELATED ARTICLE: Iran can buy a lot of terror with $100 billion – The Boston Globe

Clinton Foundation was Funding Terrorism in 2014

/in , /by

In 2014 Egypt issued warrants for both President Obama and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for their support of terrorism, specifically the Muslim Brotherhood.

61133666_gehad_el_haddad_bbc

Gehad El-Haddad

Jerome R. Corsi in his 2014 World Net Daily column titled “Obama, Clintons accused in Egypt of aiding terrorists” reported:

Two new, classified documents leaked by Egyptian security implicate President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton in the aiding and abetting of terrorists.

The documents have been entered as evidence in the criminal trials of former Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi and other top Muslim Brotherhood leaders, scheduled to begin next month in Cairo.

Obtained by Arabic-speaking former Palestinian Liberation Organization-member Walid Shoebat and posted Thursday on his website, the two leaked documents provide evidence Egyptian security forces have monitored the movements and activities of Obama’s half-brother, Malik Obama, and his Islamic Dawa Organization, or IDO.

The security forces also have kept an eye on the dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood of Essam El-Haddad, the father of Gehad El-Haddad, a senior adviser to the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States and a former employee of the William J. Clinton Foundation.

Read more.

Would Muhammad Have Been a Good Rotarian?

/in , , , /by

The Four-Way Test is a nonpartisan and nonsectarian ethical guide for Rotarians to use for their personal and professional relationships. The test has been translated into more than 100 languages, and Rotarians recite it at club meetings:

“Of the things we think, say or do”

  1. Is it the TRUTH?
  2. Is it FAIR to all concerned?
  3. Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?
  4. Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?

In the 1988 Hamas Covenant Article 17, 22, 28, Rotary Clubs are singled out along with Lions and Freemasons clubs as mere puppets of the Zionists who are running American media, wealth institutions and the source of all evils placed upon Muslims.

This portion of Article 17, entitled the “Role of Women” tells Muslim women in particular to be wary of joining Rotary Clubs;

The Moslem woman has a role no less important than that of the moslem man in the battle of liberation….they consider that if they are able to direct and bring her up the way they wish, far from Islam, they would have won the battle. That is why you find them giving these attempts constant attention through… lackeys who are infiltrated through Zionist organizations under various names and shapes, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, espionage groups and others, which are all nothing more than cells of subversion and saboteurs…these organizations operate in the absence of Islam and its estrangement among its people. The day Islam is in control of guiding the affairs of life, these organizations, hostile to humanity and Islam, will be obliterated.

In order to be a “true” Muslim, one must repeat the Shahada that says “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger.”  This simple phrase said by all Muslims (five times a day, every day)  means that to be a true Muslim one must behave as Muhammad to include his treatment of Muslims and Kafirs, i.e. non-Muslim Rotarians.

Applying the Four-Way Test, how does a “true” Muslim Rotarian answer these questions?

Is it the truth?

A Kafir Rotarian and “secular Muslim Rotarian” would answer yes, unequivocally.

A true Muslim would say, “it depends”.  Why?

There are 99 terms to describe Allah. One of those comes from the Quran Sura 3:54 where it says in part, “for Allah is the best of deceivers.”

Thus, the Quran unashamedly calls Muhammad’s god the best liar and deceiver of them all! It even dares to say that ALL deception belongs completely to Allah:

And verily, those before them did deceive/scheme (makara), but all deception/scheming is Allah’s (falillahi al-makru). He knows what every person earns, and the disbelievers will know who gets the good end. Quran Sura. 13:42

Muhammad promoted the concept of “taqiyya”, which under Islamic ideology allows for deception or outright lying.  Any statement, which if the truth were told would harm Islam, can become a “lie” in order to do no harm to “Islam”. Sahih al-Muslim (one of the most respected sources by a consensus of past and current Islamic scholars) where Muhammad is granting his approval to have a critic, like the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, killed even if lying is required:

“Allah’s Apostle said, “Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” The Prophet said, “Yes,” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). “The Prophet said, “You may say it.” 

It is these “stories” or “hadith” that are taken as examples of behavior other Muslims should emulate,. http://www.alim.org/library/hadith/SHB/369/5

Is it Fair to all concerned?

The west Judeo-Christian heritage has as one of its underlying tenets the “Golden Rule”. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  This concept is absent in the Islam that Muhammad preached. The Quran says 91 times to follow the example of the best Muslim who has ever lived and if he didn’t practice this, Muslims are not to practice it either.

Islam has no place for “fairness”. Islam translates to “submission”. The relationship is a “master/slave” relationship as described by Muhammad and Muslim scholars.

A “master” does whatever he wishes with no regard to the “slave” and in Islam/the Quran the same applies to any follower of Allah. Nothing the Muslim can say, do or believe in their heart can garner any since of fairness in how they are chosen on who goes to Paradise, except through Jihad martyrdom. Good deeds outweighing bad deeds is the goal for non-martyrs but even that is no guarantee as Allah determines what is “fair”.

Additionally, men are subservient to Allah, women are subservient to men, and non-Muslims are subservient to Muslims, hardly fair to all concerned.

Under Shariah law, sanctioned by the Islamic scripture, a non-Muslim is never to be put in a superior position over a Muslim.

Rotarians would never support promoting a more qualified individual into a position solely based upon their religious beliefs. Does that occur in the west where Shariah law is not applied?  No.

The West has laws against that. But in countries where Shariah law is applied, such discrimination occurs and is sanctioned by Islam.  So once again a truly “good” Muslim could never agree in principle to the second statement in the Four Way Test.

Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?

For an orthodox Muslim the Quran Sura 3:28 determines his response to this statement:

Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying. S. 3:28

Orthodox Muslims are directed by Muhammad to not befriend Christians, Jews and unbelievers. Based upon what has been laid out by Muhammad in the Quran (not some talking head or another Muslim), any Muslim Rotarian who is treating a Kafir Rotarian nicely and with respect is either (1) a “secular Muslim” and not being a “good” Muslim as defined by Muhammad or (2) is practicing deceit and taqiyya.  Fortunately most Rotary Muslims fall into the former category versus the latter. The greatest abuser of Muslims are other Muslims and to speak out against the tyranny found in Islam against women, children and non-Muslims as well as Muslims who don’t follow the “true path”, Shariah law, comes at such a cost that most Muslims are silenced out of fear.

The question remains are those “good Rotary” Muslims then practicing some other form of Islam, “moderate” for example, that allows them to pick and choose those Suras that are found in the Quran as well as other tenets of orthodox Islam?  Pure Islamic ideology has no room for that variance (see below).

Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?

Treaties, constitutions and other formal agreements would be examples of how two parties settle a dispute and are “beneficial to all concerned”.  Do we have examples of Muhammad signing agreements or treaties with others?  How did he treat those agreements?

The first type of “agreement” that Muhammad promoted as “fair to all concern” was the concept of the “dhimmi” contract. In Arabic, dhimmi means “protection”. It was during Islam’s history and is today the legal and social rules Christians or Jews who live under Muslim control must operate under.

They are “allowed” by agreement to practice their religion under very strict guidelines; no repairing of non-Muslim religious shrines without approval, they must walk on the other side of the street if approached by a Muslim, they must provide housing to a Muslim who is traveling and most pay a “jizya” tax per person in the family to the local community for the privilege of living in the Islamic community.

This was practiced during Muhammad’s day and is practiced still today where Muslims are the majority and Christians and Jews are in the minority.

A current example of an agreement that could be “beneficial to all concerned” would be between Israel and the Palestinians.  If the Palestinians stopped shooting rockets tomorrow,  building tunnels in order to kill Israeli civilians and agreed to the right of Israel to exist as a state, some mutually beneficial agreement could be reached.  However, if Israel laid down their arms, no one doubts a second Holocaust would occur overnight.  In 1948, 1967 and in 1973 whenever mutually beneficial agreement negotiations occurred, the Palestinian leadership, i.e. Hamas, PLO, Muslims, reiterated its position that is found in the Hamas 1988 Covenant , “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”

How do you negotiate with a party that wishes to kill you?  How is that mutually beneficial? Muhammad did this in his time with the Constitution of Medina eventually breaking that treaty and either enslaving, killing or making all Jews and Christians refugees from their homes in and around Medina.

These past and current examples are hardly “beneficial to all concern”.

No one is claiming all Muslims are going to lie, deceive, take advantage of others or not apply the ‘golden rule” when conducting their daily affairs. It would be ludicrous to say so.

The Muslims I encounter in my daily life are nice, kind and thoughtful, all traits that would make them on the surface a good Rotarian candidate for membership. A recent picnic with Afghan students, all Muslims,  proved that point clearly.

Separating the ideology that expressly preaches against the “golden rule” and is the antithesis to the Four Way Test code should be an issue of honest debate among orthodox, secular Muslims and non-Muslims. Since 60% of the Quran describes relations for Muslims toward non-Muslims, the topic is relevant to non-Muslims and Muslims alike.

Back to the dilemma; can you be a “good Muslim” and believe all the statements below are true?

  • “The entire life (not parts of it) of Muhammad represents the example I should follow”
  • “I praise his example and declare, like the Quran does 91 times, that Muhammad is the role model for me and all Muslims to follow”
  • “I can be a good Rotarian and answer truthfully “yes” to the Rotary Four Way Test!”

As President Erdogan of Turkey said in 2007 when asked about “moderate Islam” during a television interview he replied with the following: “These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

One shouldn’t ask a talking head, another Muslim or even an Imam what a “good Muslim” is or is not.  The only basis this judgment can be made upon is Muhammad and it’s all there in black and white to read in the Quran, the Hadiths and the stories of Muhammad.   Muslims may answer differently but in the end, their opinions don’t matter, only Muhammad’s example stands as the example they will be judged by.

I’ll ask the question of Rotarians or any service club member;

Rotarians conduct “fireside chats” with prospective new members before voting on them.  Who is most likely not to be accepted intoyour service club, Jesus, Gandhi, the Pope or Muhammad based upon the example they set?

Don’t be mislead, I didn’t say Muslims shouldn’t be Rotarians or members of any service group. As for Muslims or non-Muslims, the standard should be the same, one’s character, reputation, one’s trustworthiness, contributions to society, willingness to put service over self and ability to work with others.

Muslims are fine people who operate under the yoke of a “master/slave” relationship that most were born into.  Many Muslims do not even know of the facts presented above so it is understandable they maybe offended.

However, not being given the facts doesn’t disqualify those same facts from being true. If one merely discards these new facts or make a less than serious gesture at finding a new truth, the cloak of ignorance can no longer be worn. Two options remain for any Muslim who discovers the truth; complicity in the lie, i.e. a “deceiver” like Allah, or encompassing these new facts toward a different life choice.

The Rotarian Four Way Test encompasses the values I’ve tried to teach my children, that I took an oath to uphold as a commissioned officer in the Air Force and one that my Christian faith holds dear.  I suspect that many of the Muslim Rotarians around the world feel the same way as I do. They reject in their heart the violence of Muhammad and Islam.  As non-Muslims our best option is to continue to practice the Four Way Test in all the things we think, do or say, particularly toward Muslims.

My statements are not opinions but fact backed upon the Quran, Hadiths and the four major schools of Islamic thought.

For anyone who feels my statements constitute “hate-speech” I pose this question, “Can telling the truth ever be construed as being hate-speech?”  If you are looking for an answer, reference the First Amendment.

P.S. For any Rotarian who thinks relating Islam to Rotary violates the Third and Fourth Test, “Does it Build Good Will and Better Friendships” and “Will it be Beneficial to All Concerned” just recall what the Hamas Covenant said, “…The day Islam is in control of guiding the affairs of life, these organizations, hostile to humanity and Islam, will be obliterated”. 

When I visited the Rotary Club in Prague, Czech Republic and asked how long one of the members there had been in Rotary, he answered, “since 1989, when the wall came down. It was the first time we were permitted to have Rotary Clubs”.

Defending our freedoms in advance is far less bloody than doing it too late. All Americans, Rotarians included, around the world need to realize that fact. Just ask the Czechs.

Georgia: Note left on Soldier’s Car, “Mohammad will show no mercy on you”

/in , /by

Last September, an Islamic State spokesman said: “If you can kill a disbelieving American or European – especially the spiteful and filthy French – or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever […] including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be.”

“‘Death to you coward child killer – Mohammad will show no mercy on you: Chilling note found on serviceman’s car in Georgia promises revenge on U.S. military,” by Belinda Robinson,Dailymail.com, July 24, 2015 (thanks to Jerk Chicken):

A chilling note was left on a serviceman’s car blasting him for being a ‘coward women child killer who Mohammad will show no mercy to’.

The warning was placed under the front windshield wiper of the vehicle after it had been parked near Dobbins Air Reserve Base in Marietta, Georgia on Wednesday.

The note, which was unsigned and had the heading ‘untitled’, promised revenge for U.S. military involvement in the Middle East – saying ‘attacks will come full force’ and ‘death is to come to you’.

The full message, all in lower case, reads: ‘dear american soldier, death to you coward women child killer and all the american military / Mohammad will show no mercy on you / attacks will come full force / death is to come to you.’

It appears to be a reproduction of a warning that has been posted to military Facebook pages, MyFoxAtlanta reports.

Cobb County Police Department is investigating who put the note on the car.

They said that the victim may have been targeted because his license plate identified him as a service member….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Belgium arrests two ex-Guantanamo inmates on jihad terrorism charges

Kerry warns Israel: Stopping Iran’s nuke program would be “a huge mistake”

Red-Green Axis: The Agenda to Erase America! [Video]

/in , , , , , , /by

Many of you have already read our friend James Simpson’s ‘The Red-Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America’ on kindle, but today the paperback version is available at Amazon, here.

From CSP’s press release:

Washington, D.C.: The Center for Security Policy today released a new paperback version of the monograph by investigative journalist James Simpson: The Red-Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America.

This report extensively details the networks of radical left non-profits, foundations, government agencies and the personalities behind them. Unbeknownst to most Americans they are using refugee resettlement as a pretext to import waves of immigrants from third-world nations as a key front in Obama’s strategy of “fundamentally PhotoshopScreenSnapz008transforming” America. These refugees have little interest in assimilating. Many are from Muslim countries, view immigration as “Hijra” i.e. a subversive means to invade a foreign nation, and have demonstrated a willingness to either support or engage in terrorism both in America and abroad.

More here.

Here is Jim Simpson’s video on the ‘Red-Green Axis’:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Turkey Launches Strikes Against Islamic State in Syria

Al Qaeda operational commander killed in U.S. air strike: Pentagon

Islamic State works to establish functioning, legitimate government as territory grows

Stop Sharia Law Before it is Too Late

/in , , , , , /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secretary Kerry, J Street Propaganda and the U.S. Senate Iran Hearing

/in , , , , , /by
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry checks his opening remarks before appearing at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in Washington July 23, 2015. REUTERS/Gary Cameron

Secretary of State John Kerry at Senate Foreign Relations INARA Hearing, July 23, 2015.

At yesterday’s Senate Foreign Relations Hearing on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action under the Iran Nuclear Review Act, Secretary of State requested time from Chairman Rob Corker (R-TN) to respond to comments by Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID) regarding the Iran nuclear pact. The C-Span clip below shows Kerry responding by waving an article from the Washington Post authored by former Israeli Shin Bet Director, Ami Ayalon and former Mossad Director Ephraim Halevy. According to an Arutz Sheva article, “Both Ayalon and Halevy are leftist opponents of Israeli PM Netanyahu.” Moreover they are security consultants to J Street, the alleged pro-Peace, Pro-Israel group headed by Jeremy Ben Ami.  Arutz Sheva noted:

As part of its campaign to promote the Iran nuclear deal to US Congress, liberal Jewish advocacy group J Street has distributed a document containing quotes from Israeli security experts supporting the agreement, Walla! News reported Thursday.

Among those cited are former Shin Bet chief Ami Ayalon, former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy, Maj. Gen (ret.) Yisrael Ziv and Professor Uzi Even, a former official at the Dimona reactor.

MK Shelly Yechimovich (Zionist Union) is also quoted despite having expressed opposition to the deal.

The J Street documents also cites the opinions of the “Council for Peace and Security” which is comprised of hundreds of former senior officials of the IDF and other security forces in Israel.

We have posted on the Americans for Peace and Tolerance documentary, J Street Challenge regarding evidence of  an interlock relation of a board director, Genevieve Lynch who is also a board member of the pro-Islamic Regime Washington Lobby Group  the National Iranian American Council  (NIAC) headed by Swedish-Iranian citizens, Dr. Trita Parsi with close Administration relations. We pointed out in our post a Breitbart News report on a former NIAC  employee who is now on he National Security Council staff at the White House, Ms. Sahar Nowrouzzadeh. This episode at  yesterday’s Senate Foreign Relations Hearing demonstrate the astonishing cupidity of the Administration in furthering  propaganda of a notorious anti-Israel  groups, J Street, abetting the position of the Islamic Republic threatening with ‘wiping Israel off the map of the world” with threats of “Death to America, Death to Israel”.

Watch this C-Span video except of Secretary Kerry at the July 23, 2015 INARA hearing:

Watch the latest version of the APT video excerpt from the J Street Challenge documentary on the group’s  pro-Iran lobby group   connections:

RELATED ARTICLES:

John Kerry Calls Alternatives to Iran Deal ‘Unicorn’ and ‘Fantasy’

Meet 7 Dangerous Iranians Who Will No Longer Be Sanctioned

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of Secretary Kerry, Livni, and Erekat at press conference 370. Photo credit:REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst.

Salman Rushdie: World Learned ‘Wrong Lessons’ from His Iran Fatwa

/in , , , , /by
peace with iran tshirts

‘Fear disguised as respect’

“The writer said that the controversy that surrounded the PEN prize to Charlie Hebdo this year convinced him that, if the attacks against ‘The Satanic Verses’ had occurred today, ‘these people would not come to my defence and would use the same arguments against me by accusing me of insulting an ethnic and cultural minority.’” Indeed so. That was what happened after our free speech event in Garland, Texas: the international media, including many “conservatives” such as Bill O’Reilly and Laura Ingraham, excoriated Pamela Geller and declared that she should have shown more “respect” — which really meant that she should have submitted in fear, as they were doing.

The freedom of speech is seriously imperiled, and most Americans have bought into the idea that “hate speech,” which they assume to be an entity that can be objectively established, does not deserve protection. They have no idea that they’re thereby paving the way for authoritarianism and totalitarianism.

“Salman Rushdie says the world learned the ‘wrong lessons’ from his Iran fatwa ordeal,” Agence France-Presse, July 22, 2015:

More than a quarter century after being slapped with a fatwa from Iran [sic] calling for his murder over his book “The Satanic Verses”, Salman Rushdie says the world has learned the “wrong lessons” about freedom of expression.

The British author, in an interview published Wednesday by the French news magazine L’Express, said his ordeal by religious fanatics determined to violently avenge what they construed as blasphemy should have served as a wake-up call to the world.

Instead, after the September 11, 2001 attack on America and the massacre in Paris in January this year of cartoonists and staff at the Charlie Hebdo satirical weekly, and with the ongoing rampage of the brutal Islamic State group in the Middle East, Rushdie saidsome writers and other people were too cowed to talk freely about Islam.

“It seems we learned the wrong lessons,” he said in the interview printed in French.“Instead of concluding we need to oppose these attacks on freedom of expression, we believed we should calm them through compromises and ceding.”

The “politically correct” positions voiced by some — including a few prominent authors who disagreed with Charlie Hebdo receiving a freedom of speech award at a PEN literary gala in New York in May — were motivated by fear, Rushdie said.

– ‘Fear disguised as respect’ –

“If people weren’t being killed right now, if bombs and Kalashnikovs weren’t speaking today, the debate would be very different. Fear is being disguised as respect,” he said….

The writer said that the controversy that surrounded the PEN prize to Charlie Hebdo this year convinced him that, if the attacks against “The Satanic Verses” had occurred today, “these people would not come to my defence and would use the same arguments against me by accusing me of insulting an ethnic and cultural minority”….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Sweden arrests two Muslims accused of jihad terrorism

Islamic State vows to “fill the streets of Paris with dead bodies”

Kerry: U.S. Obligated to Prevent Israeli Sabotage of Iran’s Nuclear Program

/in , , /by

Armin Rosen in a Business Insider article wrote about Florida’s US Senator Marco Rubio’s provocative question that generated a troubling response from Secretary Kerry at yesterday’s testy Senate Foreign Relations Hearing on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear program. It had to do with the dilemma facing the Administration about a commitment by the world powers to defend the Iranian nuclear program against attack.

Rubio raised the hypothetical of what would be the U.S. obligation under a provision found in an Annex III to the agreement, if Israel might undertake a possible cyber attack.  An attack akin to the malworm, Stuxnet that disabled Iran’s enrichment centrifuges temporarily setting back their nuclear program.

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) questions U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz (not pictured) before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in Washington July 23, 2015. REUTERS/Gary Cameron

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) at Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing July 23, 2015. Source:  Reuters-Gary Cameron.

The Business Insider article laid out the quandary:

Republican presidential candidate and US Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) asked about a provision of the agreement that seems to obligate the US and its negotiating partners to help protect Iranian nuclear sites against potential outside attack.

According to Annex III, the agreement’s section on “civil nuclear cooperation,” the signatories commit to “co-operation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems.

This provision of the deal doesn’t mention any countries by name. But Rubio wondered if this was included in the deal because of Iranian concerns related to a specific US ally.

“If Israel decides it doesn’t like this deal and it wants to sabotage an Iranian nuke program or facility, does this deal that we have just signed obligate us to help Iran defend itself against Israeli sabotage or for that matter the sabotage of any other country in the world?” Rubio asked.

[Secretary of Energy] Moniz replied that “all of our options and those of our allies and friends would remain in place” after the deal goes into effect.

Kerry then jumped in to explain the provision’s specific purpose: “To be able to have longer-term guarantees as we enter a world in which cyberwarfare is increasingly a concern for everybody that if you are going to have a nuclear capacity, you clearly want to be able to make sure that those are adequately protected.”

Rubio posed the key question to Kerry:

If Israel conducts a cyber attack against the Iranian nuclear program are we obligated to help them defend themselves against an Israel cyber attack?

Kerry responded:

I don’t see any way possible that we would be in conflict with Israel with respect to what we might want to do there and we just have to wait until we get until that point,” Kerry said, cryptically — “that point” referring to a future time at which Israel believes it’s necessary to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program. It seems that at that juncture, the US would have to determine whose side to take.

The background of this troubling JCPOA provision was explored in our July 14, 2015 1330 amWEBY interview with Omri Ceren of The Israel Project and Shoshana Bryen of The Jewish Policy Center to be published as an article in the August edition of the New English Review.

Note this exchange between Mike Bates of WEBY and Bryen:

sbryen-804443500

Shoshana Bryen of The Jewish Policy Center.

Bates:  Shoshana.  Because with a deal in place, Iran will be free to covertly develop nuclear weapons without consequence.  …However, if the day comes when Israel has valid reasons to believe that a nuclear weapon is in the hands of the Iranians, or is imminently so, Israel is going to have no choice but to act unilaterally.  When they do, they will be excoriated and vilified.  … I think this makes it more dangerous, because the military option, as I see it, Shoshana, is off the table.

 Bryen:  I’m not sure it wasn’t always off the table.  Starting in the Bush Administration,the United States and Israel had a divergence of opinion about how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program. The Bush administration was in favor of sanctions and believed in squeezing them to death.  They were not in favor of military activity.   The Israelis always had believed that military action was best done in conjunction with the United States. Once they began to understand that there was no way, that even their good friend George W. Bush was not going to help them do this.   The military option became less viable.  You have to think about it from the point of view of a small country, Israel, and a large country, Iran, which has air defenses. Iran will now have better air defenses, because the Russians have sold them better air defenses.  The Iranians had more time to bury and harden their facilities.  They’ve had more time to dig them under populated places.  If you have to drop a bomb on something, the collateral damage there will be very heavy. I’m not sure that there was a great military option, to begin with.  However, you are right to the extent that if there was a facility you felt was absolutely crucial, I believe Israel could destroy it.

Omri Ceren

Omri Ceren, The Israel Project.

Note the following exchange between Bates and Ceren:

Bates:   I’m more concerned about the 8 million people living in Israel; the 300 millionpeople in the United States.  I’m concerned that Iran has been given a pathway to a bomb that is unobstructed.  This takes the military option off the table.  Even if Israel believes their existential threat is imminent, they can hardly attack militarily to stop it.  …I think the concessions are so much bigger than that.  Am I wrong, Omri?

Ceren:  Let me say that Shoshana’s answer was very compelling…Which is the military option was never Israel’s main option.  Sabotage and subterfuge were Israel’s real options, which is why it is so concerning that this deal puts the Iranian nuclear program under international sponsorship.There is an annex to the deal that says the EU-3 and their partners will teach them how to harden their nuclear assets against sabotage.  Specifically, against nuclear sabotage. In effect we’re protecting them,as they build up their program.  Forget protecting them in the last five minutes from Israeli action.  Thisdeal protects them from Israeli action throughout the entire lifetime of the deal

These exchanges between Senator Rubio and Secretary Kerry at yesterday’s Senate Foreign Relations Hearing and the excerpted WEBY interview exchanges with both Bryen and Ceren in the forthcoming New English Review article demonstrate how the JCPOA constrains both the US and Israel’s options to deal with the Iran nuclear threat. All due to the concessions made by Kerry and the negotiating team at both Lausanne and in Vienna. It explains why the Republican majority in both Houses of Congress and even some minority Democrats oppose the nuclear pact with Iran. Further, why Israel PM Netanyahu called the Nuclear pact with Iran a very bad deal in his speech on March 3,2015 before a Joint Meeting of Congress. We commend Republican Senator Rubio for asking the tough question that forced Secretary Kerry’s verification of how bad this deal is.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of Secretary of State Kerry with Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, and Energy Secretary Moniz, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing, July 23, 2015. Source: AP/Andrew Harnik.

Why wasn’t Chuck at the Times Square Rally to Kill the Iran Nuke Deal?

/in , , /by
Thousands of protesters are expected in Times Square Wednesday, July 22, 2015, to rally against the controversial deal to lift sanctions against Iran in exchange for limits on its nuke program. (New York Post/Annie Wermiel)

Times Square Stop Iran Now Rally, July 22, 2015. Source: New York Post

Yesterday, a crowd estimated at upwards of 12,000 showed up at Times Square Rally to Stop Iran Now!  Organized by Jeff Weisenfeld of JCCWatch.org the crowd heard notable pro-American and Israel speakers address why the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) announced in Vienna and Washington a week ago is a “very bad deal”.  Over and over again, we heard cries of “Where is Chuck: Kill the Deal”, a reference to New York  Senator Charles “Chuck” Schumer, who will replace Nevada Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.  Senator Schumer has ducked reporters questions about his position on the Iran nuclear pact. The New York Post wrote about the Times Square Rally and Schumer’s reticent responses following a meeting with other Democrat Senators in Washington, Tuesday evening, Thousands protest Iran nuke deal in Times Square:

Thousands of protesters flooded Times Square Wednesday to rally against President Obama’s controversial Iran nuclear arms deal.

[…]

Protesters repeatedly booed mentions of Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, and also turned their wrath on US Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), who has yet to take a position on the agreement.

“Where is Chuck? Kill this deal!” the crowd chanted at one point during the three-hour event.

Schumer was at the Capitol in DC for a Senate briefing by Secretary of State John Kerry, who helped broker the Iran accord.

“I’ve read the agreement and I’m seeking answers to the many questions I have. Before I make a decision, I’m going to speak at length with experts on both sides,” Schumer said in a statement issued ahead of the protest.

Schumer emerged from the meeting at about 6 p.m., telling reporters: “It’s a serious issue and I’m studying it carefully.”

On Monday The Post published ten questions for Senator Schumer to answer:

  1. Did you have any input into the Iran nuclear deal? If you did, how much of the deal reflects your advice?
  2. The deal lifts the conventional-weapons embargo on Iran after five years and the missiles embargo after eight years, or even earlier. Are you comfortable with that — and with the conventional weapons being included in a nuclear agreement?
  3. Do you still stand by your April statement: “I strongly believe Congress should have the right to disapprove any agreement?” How do you feel about the administration asking the United Nations to weigh in on the deal before Congress gets to vote?
  4. International inspectors can enter Iranian military bases under the agreement, but only after a process that can take up to 24 days. Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu said the timeline makes this a joke and it’s like giving a drug dealer 24 days before inspecting his meth lab. Do you agree?
  5. President Obama has conceded that Iran has “missiles that are pointed towards Tel Aviv.” How could you support an agreement with a nation that wants to wipe out Israel? Can you assure your constituents that Israel doesn’t have to worry as a result of this pact?
  6. Should the US have made any deal with a nation subsidizing terrorist organizations in several countries?
  7. Do you view the deal as a “conscience vote” in Congress, or do you think it’s your role to get Democrats to support the president? Or, perhaps, do you have to support the president in order to become the next Senate Democratic leader?
  8. Do you accept Obama’s logic that he had to separate the hostages from the talks in order to avoid giving Iran leverage?
  9. On a scale of 1 to 100, how much faith do you have that Iran will abide by the deal?
  10. The president said the only alternative to this deal was war. Do you agree? Why not sanctions?

Among the noteworthy speakers at the Stop Iran Now Times Square rally were venerable 95 year old former Manhattan District Attorney, Robert Morgenthau, Jr., author of  a Wall Street Journal op-ed that was a veritable brief against the JCPOA, “Obama Ignores the Tehran-Terror Connection.”  Two  exceptional speakers were Caroline Glick , Jerusalem Post,  deputy managing editor, and Florida former Congressman Allen West.  Glick provided what Dr. Robert Sklaroff of Philadelphia told me were highly effective “bullets”- arguments against the Iran nuclear deal.  Allen West gave an emotion-packed rouser that made the connections between the threats to the U.S. and Israel.

Watch Caroline Glick on this YouTube Video of her speech at the Stop Iran Now Rally:

Watch Allen West on this YouTube Video of his speech at the Stop Iran Now Rally:

This morning the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee is holding a televised public hearing with Secretary of State Kerry, Secretary of Energy former MIT Professor Ernest Moniz and Treasury Secretary Lew.  Watch it live here and see the exchange between Members of the Committee and the panel on the Iran nuclear pact.

EDITORS NOTE: The column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Obama’s Iran Nuke Deal: It’s Déjà vu All Over Again

/in , , , /by

Democratic Party leader Barack Obama is doing in 2015 with the Iran Nuclear Deal what another Democrat Party leader did with a nuclear deal with North Korea in 1994. That Democrat is Bill Clinton, whose wife Hillary is running for the White House in 2016.

Perhaps it is time to read excerpts from what President Clinton said on October 18th, 1994:

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.

[ … ]

Today, after 16 months of intense and difficult negotiations with North Korea, we have completed an agreement that will make the United States, the Korean Peninsula, and the world safer. Under the agreement, North Korea has agreed to freeze its existing nuclear program and to accept international inspection of all existing facilities.

This agreement represents the first step on the road to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. It does not rely on trust. Compliance will be certified by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The United States and North Korea have also agreed to ease trade restrictions and to move toward establishing liaison offices in each other’s capitals. These offices will ease North Korea‘s isolation.

[ … ]

Throughout this administration, the fight against the spread of nuclear weapons has been among our most important international priorities, and we’ve made great progress toward removing nuclear weapons from Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and from Belarus. Nuclear weapons in Russia are no longer targeted on our citizens. Today all Americans should know that as a result of this achievement on Korea, our Nation will be safer and the future of our people more secure…

Read the full text of President Clinton’s announcement of a nuclear deal with North Korea click here.

Sound familiar? Here are the comments by President Obama on the Iran nuclear deal:

History shows us what happened with the North Korean nuclear arms deal. Today North Korea is exporting its nuclear and missile technology to other nations, such as Iran, with impunity.

As Yogi Berra once said this is Déjà vu All Over Again.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Meet 7 Dangerous Iranians Who Will No Longer Be Sanctioned

Iran Vows to Buy Weapons Anytime, Anywhere

Ted Cruz: Because of Iran Deal, Jihadists ‘Will Use Our Money to Murder Americans’

Investigative Project on Terrorism: Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrates Obama Administration

VIDEO: Rescuing Muslims from Islam

/in , , , /by

On this week’s special edition of The Glazov Gang, Jamie Glazov was joined by Mona Walter, a Christian convert from Islam. She came on the show to discuss her mission of rescuing Muslims from the chains that bind them.

Don’t miss it!

EDITORS NOTE: Please Subscribe to Jamie Glazov Productions and LIKE Jamie’s Fan Page on Facebook.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Sweden: Muslims hound Christian asylum seekers out of immigrant housing

UK denying refuge to Christians fleeing the Islamic State