U.S. Senate Democrats kill the Syrian Refugee SAFE Act — use Trump as excuse

/in , , , , , , /by

Senate Democrats showed their abject fear of Donald Trump by bringing him into the debate as they did.

As we told you a couple of days ago, the federal refugee resettlement contractors were whipping their forces to tell their Senators to oppose a bill that had passed the House in November with broad bipartisan support.  The contractors were so afraid of losing their Muslim ‘clients’ (a large portion of those for which they are paid by the head to bring to your towns).

 

Yesterday, the Senate failed to get cloture and move the bill with enough votes to assure Obama would not veto it.  From insiders we learned that the bill, if it ever passed and was signed by Obama, would have been a fig leaf and not done much to keep us safe from terrorists getting into your neighborhoods from places like Syria and Iraq.

The vote, however, was informative.  All Democrats except Bernie Sanders who missed the vote, and two brave souls, voted to kill the bill. Republicans including the three US Senators running for President voted to move the bill.

The two Dems who bucked the party (and the grassroots working for contractors) were West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin and North Dakota Senator Heidi Heitkamp.

Here is the roll call vote.

This is what Reuters says about the vote:

U.S. Senate Democrats on Wednesday narrowly blocked legislation that would slow the entry of refugees from Syria and Iraq to the United States in a contentious vote cloaked in presidential election-year politics.

Manchin and Heitkamp

Democratic Senators Manchin and Heitkamp.

The vote was 55-43, with “yes” votes falling short of the 60 needed to advance the Republican-backed measure in the 100-member Senate. No Republicans voted against the bill, and only two Democrats backed it.

Among other things, the bill would halt the admission of refugees and require high-level U.S. officials to verify that each refugee from Iraq and Syria posed no security risk before being allowed into the United States.  [This is the part of the bill that was so weak because the Obama Administration (and a Hillary one too) would simply verify that screening was adequate.—ed]

Republicans said the tighter screening was essential to ensure the safety of Americans and prevent attacks within the country by Islamic State and other militant groups.

“This bipartisan bill would allow Washington to step back, take a breath and ensure it has the correct policies and security screenings in place,” Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in the Senate before the vote.

[….]

All three Senate Republican 2016 presidential hopefuls, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, backed the bill. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders missed the vote.

Dems tried and failed to bring Donald Trump into the debate.  Who in their right mind would have gone along with this trick!

Democrats also sought to play politics. They tried and failed to reach a deal with Republicans to set up a vote on an amendment establishing a religious test for would-be immigrants.

That vote was planned to see if Republicans would side against presidential candidate Donald Trump, who has advocated barring Muslims from entering the United States.

The Syria refugee bill passed the House by a large margin days after the Nov. 13 Islamic State attacks in Paris. The bill was supported by dozens of Democrats who defied Democratic President Barack Obama’s veto threat.

There is mention in the story that refugees are screened for 18-24 months which is a joke.  They are briefly screened, then they wait for their plane tickets and their assignments to your towns!

Conclusion!  Democrats, except those in West Virginia and North Dakota, are on the side of flooding America with refugees from terror-producing countries.  That is pretty clear.

And, it is also pretty clear that there is much work ahead (Congress is not going to save us!) during Election 2016 to educate the public through whatever means possible about the Refugee Admissions Program which is being effectively directed by the United Nations choosing America’s refugees.

RELATED ARTICLE: How Nearly 500,000 Visa Overstays Will Impact the Immigration Debate

You’re 62 times more likely to be killed by an Islamic jihadist than by a ‘right-wing extremist’

/in , , , /by

Contrary to media myth, you’re actually 62 times more likely to be killed by an Islamic jihadist than by a “right-wing extremist.” Professor Andrew Holt shows that not only did the New America Foundation wildly exaggerate the threat of “right-wing extremists,” and fudge the data to do so, it also ignored several murderous Islamic jihad attacks. The New America Foundation study was written up in the New York Times and elsewhere — the mainstream media loved it and continues to cite it to this day. This debunking will not get that kind of attention.

Andrew-Holt

Professor Andrew Holt, Florida State College at Jacksonville, FL

“Prof DEBUNKS study claiming right-wing extremists in U.S. more deadly than Islamic terrorists,” by Michael McGrady, The College Fix, January 18, 2016:

A widely touted study claiming right-wing extremism is more deadly than Islamic terrorism in the United States has been debunked by a history professor who shows that, in actuality, there have been 62 Americans killed by Islamic terrorists in the U.S. for every one American killed by right-wing extremists. Professor Andrew Holt of Florida State College at Jacksonville recently published his analysis that discredits the widespread sentiment that right-wing attackers are the deadliest domestic terrorists in the U.S.

“If you include the death totals from 9/11 in such a calculation, then there have been around 62 people killed in the United States by Islamic extremists for every one American killed by a right wing terrorist,” Holt stated in his analysis.

Holt’s analysis points out numerous flaws in the highly cited study released in 2015 by New America Foundation, which claimed 48 deaths in the U.S. were due to “far right wing attacks” while only counting 45 deaths due to “violent jihadist attacks.”

The study’s findings were not only touted by many major news outlets across the nation as proof that fears over radical Islamic terror in the U.S. are overblown, but the findings are also used today in some college classrooms as an example of Islamophobia.

But, Holt points out the foundation’s findings are based on flawed data sets.

For one, the foundation did not count the deaths on Sept. 11. Secondly, it did not factor in extraordinary security measures, such as the Patriot Act and the creation of Homeland Security, put in place after 9/11 that prevented a large number of attempted attacks by Islamic terrorists on American soil.

Moreover, the foundation’s count does not recognize “the disproportionately high number of attacks by Islamic extremists in the United States, who, even after excluding the victims of 9/11, are still responsible for around 50 percent of the total number of deaths due to extremism, even though Muslims only account for around 1 percent of the total U.S. population,” Holt states.

Underscoring all that, Holt said the foundation’s count ignored more than a half-dozen examples of radical Islamic terrorism deaths in the U.S.

One of the most glaring omissions, he noted, is the 2002 D.C. Beltway snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, who admitted to authorities that they were inspired by Osama bin Laden and sought to set up a terrorist training camp.

“Indeed, on April 22, 2005, the Virginia Supreme Court affirmed [the] death penalty on the basis that Muhammad had committed an act of terrorism,” Holt stated. “Together, Muhammad and Malvo killed at least ten people. Yet [the foundation] does not list their victims among those under the category of ‘violent jihadist attacks.’”

“If we add Muhammad and Malvo’s victims to the total number of Americans killed by Islamic extremists since 9/11, then the number killed rises to 55, a total higher than the 48 deaths they attribute to right wing extremism.”

Holt added additional deaths due to Islamic terror in the U.S. are not counted by the foundation, including:

In June of 2006 in Denver, a man shot four of his co-workers and a swat team member, killing one. He later claimed he did it because it was “Allah’s choice.” In December of 2009 in Binghamton, a Saudi Arabian graduate student named Abdulsalam S. al-Zahrani killed Richard T. Antoun, a non-Muslim Islamic studies professor who served on al-Zahrani’s dissertation committee, in revenge for “persecuted” Muslims. Prior to the killing one of al-Zahrani’s roommates tried to warn the university administration that he had been acting “like a terrorist.” In 2012 in Houston, in two separate incidents in January and in November, two people were shot to death by a Muslim extremist for their roles in his daughter’s conversion to Christianity. In March of 2013 in Ashtabula (Ohio), a Muslim convert walked into a Christian Church during an Easter service and killed his father, claiming it was “the will of Allah.” In August of 2014 in Richmond (California) killed an Ace Hardware employee by stabbing him seventeen times, claiming he was on a “mission from Allah.”

In an email interview with The College Fix, Holt emphasized that any extremist attack is disturbing and must be condemned, adding “my comments are not intended to discount the very real suffering of victims of right wing terror.”

Nevertheless, Americans have been misled by the foundation’s study and deserve an accurate picture, Holt said.

“The study has been widely reported in the mainstream press, and those reports have been widely shared on social media, often cited as evidence for the surprising claim above,” Holt told The College Fix. “… But the reality is that if you include the deaths from 9/11, then the raw and ugly numbers show that over the last 15 years more Americans have died as a result of Islamic extremism than right wing extremism by an extraordinarily lopsided ratio of more than 62 to 1.”

“Moreover, even if you exclude the deaths of 9/11 for some reason, but do not apply the very limiting parameters used in the New American study, then you still get a higher number of total U.S. deaths from Islamic extremism than from right wing extremism.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama delays new sanctions, pardons Iranians accused of helping Iran illegally fuel its nuclear research

UK government launches website to protect children from “extremism”

Geert Wilders: ‘Welcome, Donald Trump’ to the land of thoughtcrimes

/in , , , , , , /by

Britain: the cradle of freedom, now the land of thoughtcrime.

“Exclusive–Geert Wilders: Delusional Britain Would Rather Ban Donald Trump Than Confront Unpleasant Facts,” by Geert Wilders, Breitbart, January 19, 2016:

Deja-vu. It is not an English word, but French. However, the word immediately springs to mind when hearing about yet another Western politician or Islam critic, whom some British politicians want to ban from entering their country. Welcome, Donald Trump, in the company of Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and myself.

Both Pamela, Robert and myself have been banned from entering the United Kingdom. In my case, it happened on February 12, 2009. Two highly respected members of the British House of Lords, Lady Caroline Cox and Lord Malcolm Pearson, had invited me to show my 2008 documentary Fitna to members of the House in a conference room of the parliament building in Westminster. Fitna is a movie, juxtaposing Koranic versed calling for violence with footage of terrorist attacks and other violent deeds these verses inspired.

Fitna, as well as my view that Islam, rather than a religion, is primarily a totalitarian political ideology aiming for world domination, has resulted in several death threats against my person. I am on the death list of Al-Qaeda, ISIS and the Pakistani Taliban. Since 2004, I have been living under round-the-clock police protection, but I have a mission: Speak the truth about Islam.

However, a Pakistani-born Islamic member of the House of Lords, one Nazir Ahmed, demanded that the then British Labour government ban me from entering the UK. He threatened that he would personally mobilize 10,000 Muslims to prevent me from entering the Upper House. The government complied and had me banned. Though a member of the Dutch parliament, invited by British colleagues, I was locked up in a detention room upon arrival at Heathrow Airport. Three hours later, I was put on the next flight to Amsterdam.

The British authorities said that my “presence in the UK would pose a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society.” My statements as expressed in Fitna and elsewhere were said to “threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK.” Lord Ahmed boasted of his victory in the Pakistani media. He termed the decision “a victory for the Muslim community.”

However, I challenged the ban before the British Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. On October 12, 2009, this tribunal overturned the ban. In March 2010, I returned to London and showed my movie to my colleagues in Westminster. There were no incidents and no disturbances of Britain’s “fundamental interests,” “community harmony,” or “public security.” The bans served but one goal: It was an attempt to shut me up for speaking the truth about Islam.

Yesterday, Pamela Geller wrote on this website that in June 2013, she and Robert Spencer, too, were banned from the UK because their presence was “not conductive to the public good” and a “threat to security of our society.” It sounded eerily familiar, as did the arguments of those who want Donald Trump to be banned from Britain for advocating a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration into the US. Fortunately, they did not succeed.

When the great Ronald Reagan visited the British Parliament in 1982, he told the British parliamentarians that “if history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly.” This is an advice that politicians everywhere should take at heart.

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK jihadis laugh as they watch Islamic State execution video in restaurant

Hugh Fitzgerald: Sticking to the Details

January 20, 2009: A day that lives in ‘irony’

/in , , , , /by

January 20, 2009, seven years ago today, is a day that lives in “irony.”  It was 6:00 p.m. in “den Haag” (the Hague) Netherlands and I just finished an amazing interview with Member of Parliament Geert Wilders regarding a variety of issues related to Islamic jihad and the cultural attack of Islam against the Judeo-Christian West.

As my team and I walked into the Plaza on the Hague grounds, I heard loud chanting and screaming like you would hear at a Super bowl football game. I looked inside the very upscale cafe’s and bars and saw crowds of young Europeans jumping around in ecstatic fits crying, laughing and cheering. I was extremely curious as to what was going on in these 15 different public places. I walked into the doorway of one and saw that all the Euro’s were watching the television. As I focused on the TV set I was doubly-shocked, as I deeply experienced a frightening moment of post-modern intellectual chaos.

On the TV screen, at noon, Eastern time, was President Barak Obama was being inaugurated as the 44th President of the United States of America. Not 20 minutes earlier, as it relates to global security, I was with Geert Wilders one of the most clear-thinking political leaders in the world and now, those for who he serves, were bowing at the foot of a man that I knew would create world chaos with his flawed and failed views of foreign policy and national security.

It struck me, “are these Euro’s blind or stupid or ignorant or all of the above?” Well, it’s seven years removed from that day and the facts of history confirm exactly what many of us knew on January 20, 2009 and know even better today, January 20, 2016.  Geert Wilders is right and President Obama is wrong. Enjoy this walk down Memory Lane!

Syrian civil war negotiations get off to rocky start

/in , , , /by
Dr. Riad Hijab, Syria's former Prime Ministe

Dr. Riad Hijab, Syria’s former Prime Minister : Syria’s Supreme Commission for Negotiations Convenes (PRNewsFoto/Office of Dr Riad Hijab)

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia /PRNewswire/ — The Supreme Commission for Negotiations held its third meeting on Tuesday and Wednesday January 19-20, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The Commission Coordinator Dr. Riad Hijab presided over a wide agenda with several deliberation sessions and reviews, in addition to consultations over outcomes from visits to various Arab and Western capitals.

Following a thorough review of the Commission’s proposed agenda to UN Special Envoy, Staffan de Mistura; the Commission agreed to the appointment of Mr. As’ad Al-Zo’ubi as head of the negotiating team, Mr. George Sabra as deputy and Mr. Mohamad Alloush as chief negotiator. Appointment of the delegation was based on a rigorous selection criteria taking into account qualifications, expertise and ability to implement any future agreements on the ground.

Dr. Hijab confirmed that the Commission will request from the UN envoy to formally and directly issue invitations to the Commission to attend the negotiations.  Regarding the idea of a third delegation from outside the charter of the Commission, Dr. Hijab commented:

“The Riyadh Conference incorporated a diverse spectrum of Syrian opposition, including the National Coalition for Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces, the National Coordination Committee, moderate factions, political groups and independent figures who participated in the Cairo and Moscow conferences, as well as broad ethnic and religious representation and a significant number of independents.

We will not accept attempts by foreign parties to support a particular group at the expense of another, make proposals intended to challenge the credibility and mandate of the Supreme Commission for Negotiations, or to inject individuals in the form of a so-called third delegation, justifying their presence under unfounded pretexts merely to disrupt the political process and prolong the fighting in the name of combating terrorism.”

During the meeting several opposition groups proposed to suspend negotiations and consider the timing in the absence of full adherence by signatory states to UNSCR 2254, particularly:  lifting the siege to enable humanitarian agencies to deliver aid, releasing detainees, ceasing aerial shelling and artillery attacks against civilians.

In response to these valid reservations Dr. Hijab pointed out that, “Dates are not sacred, we will not go to any negotiations while our people suffer from shelling, starvation and siege… debased political bartering at the expense of the Syrian people is tantamount to callous extortion which we will not accept under any circumstance.”

VIDEO: Tactics for Counter Jihad

/in , , , , /by

Many people are afraid of speaking out about Political Islam. But, once you understand the nature of our enemies, you need not be afraid. Actually, we have two enemies: the far enemy (Islam) and the near enemy (the apologists). You only need to deal with the apologists, such as ministers, media editors, school board members and opinion makers. The only damage you will have to contend with is being called names, such as bigot, hater and racist.

We must educate the apologists by understanding their principles and showing them how Political Islam violates their own beliefs. Once they can see this, they can become an ally.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

VIDEO: The Four Jihads

Massive Terrorist Migration to Telegram: The new Jihadist Social Media Destination

VIDEO: Migration as Jihad

The Islamic State vs. the Laffer Curve by Daniel J. Mitchell

/in , , , , /by

Based on my writings, some people may think I’m 100 percent against higher taxes.

But that’s not exactly true. In some cases, I like punitive taxation. Or, to be more precise, I sometimes take pleasure when punitive tax policy backfires on bad people.

Here’s an example. An interesting article in Slate, authored by Adam Chodorow of Arizona State University Law School, looks at how a terrorist group’s attempt to form a government is being stymied by an inability to collect taxes.

Revolution is easy. Governing is hard. And there are few things more difficult than taxes. Operating a country requires money, and that typically requires taxes. … 

The population in this area is estimated to be between 7 million and 8 million, about the same as the population of Washington state. While ISIS currently collects about $1 billion annually, countries of similar size collect about $16 billion, suggesting that ISIS has a long way to go if it wants to operate like a real state.

But the comparatively low levels of tax revenue are not because of a Hong Kong-type commitment to limited government.

Instead, the terror group is discovering that people don’t like giving their money to politicians and bureaucrats, even ones motivated by Islamic fundamentalism.

Taxes aren’t a great way to ingratiate oneself with the governed. … More than one government has fallen because of its tax policy. ISIS must face these challenges just as any emerging polity does… ISIS may have displayed prowess on the battlefield, but it has revealed that it is as stymied and constrained by the complexities of taxation as the rest of us. …

ISIS’s taxes appear to be … no more popular in the territory it controls than they would be here in the U.S. As the Times reported, ISIS’s taxes are now so onerous that large numbers of people, who were apparently willing to tolerate ISIS’s religious authoritarianism, are fleeing Syria and Iraq to escape them. At some point people will either rise up or leave, threatening ISIS’s internal revenue source.

So taxes are becoming so onerous that taxpayers (and taxable income) are escaping.

Hmm… excessive taxation leading to less taxable economic activity. That seems like a familiar concept — something I’ve written about one or two times. Or maybe 50 or 100 times.

Ah, yes, our old friend, the Laffer Curve!

ISIS is … constrained by a lack of administrative resources and the simple reality once sketched on the back of a cocktail napkin by the economist Arthur Laffer: that tax rates can only get so high before they actually drive down government revenues.

Given current conditions, ISIS may be near or at the limits of its ability to tax, even if it can recruit jihadi tax accountants to its cause. Thus … it’s not clear how much room the group has to grow internal revenues. More important, its efforts to do so may do more to damage its prospects than outside forces can accomplish.

This sounds like the tax equivalent of War of the Worlds, the H.G. Wells’ classic in which alien invaders wreak havoc on earth until they are felled by bacteria.

Tom Cruise was the star of a 2005 movie adaptation of this story, but I’m thinking I could rekindle my acting career and star in a movie of how the Laffer Curve thwarts ISIS!

But to have a happy ending, ISIS has to be defeated. And Professor Chodorow closes his article with a very helpful suggestion.

Rather than send in ground troops … view our tax code as a weapon of mass destruction. … We could make full use of it in the war on ISIS, perhaps by translating it into Arabic in the hopes that the group adopts it.

Sounds like the advice I once gave about threatening Assad with Obamacare.

A version of this post first appeared at Dan Mitchell’s blog International Liberty.

Daniel J. MitchellDaniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review.

VIDEO: Iranian-Backed Harakat al-Sabireen Terror Group in West Bank and Gaza

/in , , , /by

 reports:

A new Iranian-backed terror group is making inroads in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, where it operates underground with the potential capacity to deliver devastating attacks to Israel, according to regional experts who have been investigating the organization’s rise.

The group, which goes by the name Harakat al-Sabireen, was established around May 2014 but has begun in recent months to boost its public profile on social media and brag about its plots to wage jihad against Israel, according to information gathered by regional analysts and provided to the Washington Free Beacon.

Al-Sabireen is believed to receive $10 million a year from Iran via funds that are smuggled through a large network of tunnels built by terrorists to facilitate illicit travel beneath the Gaza Strip, according to estimates disseminated in the Arab language press.

Read more.

RELATED ARTICLES:

What terror will Iran fund with $100 billion?

U.S. releases convicted felons for hostages held by Iran

Murdered by a terrorist in her own home: remembering Dafna Meir

Court: NYPD must purge documents on how Islamic terrorists operate

/in , , , , , /by

The NYPD is now bound to pretend that the Muslim community is no more likely to produce terrorists than the Amish community or the Jain community. Here again, what could possibly go wrong?

The Leftist ideologues who have joined with Islamic supremacists such as Linda Sarsour to bring this about seem to think that there will be no consequences to enforcing upon the NYPD ignorance about the jihad threat.

Either they don’t realize that there will be more Islamic jihad murder in New York City because of this ruling, or they don’t care — and given that this is 2016, after 9/11, after Fort Hood, after the Boston Marathon, after Garland, after Chattanooga, after San Bernardino, after hundreds of thwarted jihad plots and more, it is apparently the latter.

SarsourdeBlasio

New York City Mayor de Blasio (right) with Linda Sarsour.

“Court Requires NYPD to Purge Docs on Terrorists Inside U.S.,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, January 18, 2016:

The New York Police Department has been directed by a U.S. court to remove from its online records an investigation pertaining to the rise of Islamic extremists in the West and the threats these individuals pose to American safety, according to legal documents.

As part of a settlement agreement reached earlier this month with Muslim community advocates in U.S. District Court, the NYPD will purge from its website an extensive report that experts say has been critical to the department’s understanding of radical Islam and its efforts to police the threat.

The court settlement also stipulates that the NYPD make a concerted effort to mitigate the impact of future terror investigations on certain religious and political groups, according to a copy of the court documents published by the American Civil Liberties Union, which has spearheaded the case since June 2013.

Legal experts and critics of the settlement maintain that it could hamper future terrorism investigations and view it as part of a larger campaign by Muslim advocacy organizations in the United States to dismantle surveillance programs encompassing that community.

Critics expressed particular concern about the case in light of a recent surge in attacks on U.S. citizens committed by individuals pledging allegiance to terror groups such as ISIS.

A key portion of the settlement focuses on the NYPD’s purported use of a document produced by the department’s intelligence division to examine how radicalized individuals make their way to the United States and carry out terror attacks.

The document, “Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat,” aimed to provide local law enforcement and policy makers with information about domestic terrorists and their operations.

As part of the settlement agreement, the NYPD will be forced to remove the publication from its database and vow not to rely on it in the future.

The NYPD and New York state government agencies included in the case “represent that they do not, have not, and will not rely upon the Radicalization in the West report to open or extend investigations,” according to the settlement. “Defendants will remove the Radicalization in the West report from the NYPD website.”

The settlement further affirms that the NYPD will be “committed to mitigating the potential impact” of future investigations on political and religious groups, such as those in the Muslim-American community.

While NYPD officials would not comment Thursday when contacted by the Washington Free Beacon, a spokesperson directed a reporter to a recent press release affirming the department’s commitment to upholding the court settlement.

The NYPD and relevant New York state agencies will “provide additional guidance to police officers as part of a settlement of lawsuits accusing the NYPD of improperly investigating Muslim groups,” according to the Jan. 7 press release. “While the City did not admit to engaging in any improper practices, the changes represent an effort to provide more detailed guidance to NYPD personnel within the existing Handschu Guidelines,” which govern how authorities investigate political activities.

The NYPD confirmed that it would remove from its website the 2007 radicalization report.

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK: Muslims plotted to murder police and soldiers in drive-by London shootings for the Islamic State

Number of Muslims from UK who have joined the Islamic State now up to 1,500

‘Could this be the year Europe dies’ as economic conditions drive a billion Africans North?

/in , , , , /by

Klaus Schwab the founder of the World Economic Forum convening in Davos, Switzerland this week has a very scary prediction for the future of Europe.

Learn more here at American Resistance 2016!

See our complete ‘Invasion of Europe’ archive by clicking here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Wisconsin: It is not just meatpackers having problems with Muslim refugee employees

See American Resistance 2016! for a couple of stories that might interest RRW readers

So-called ‘Unaccompanied alien children’ numbers are on target to surpass Invasion 2014

U.S. Campuses: Virulent Anti-Semitism Passed Off as Mild Dissent

/in , , , , /by

Anti-Israel BDS resolutions have been seizing campuses in Canada. According to an article in the Jerusalem Post, it is Hamas — an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood — that has fueled and directed the BDS and Israel Apartheid Week campaigns on university campuses across North America, through chapters of the Muslim Student Association and the Palestine Solidarity Network. Yet these menacing campaign drives are being minimized, passed off at best as a difference of opinion, and at worst, as social justice campaigns to protect Palestinians from the so-called brutalities imposed by an apartheid state.

A recent Brandeis University study on anti-Semitism singled out Canadian and Californian universities as locales where hostility toward Jewish students was especially high.

In Spring 2014, several hundred Ryerson University students voted “overwhelmingly in favour” of supporting BDS. Then three months ago, what was described as “a hate-filled anti-semitic message full of vile language” was found scrawled in the men’s bathroom at Ryerson. It referenced the “stealing of Palestinian land” and called for Israel, Jews and supporters of the state of Israel to “burn in hell.” In April, the president of the organization called Ryerson’s Students Supporting Israel said she was spat upon while holding an Israeli flag as she filmed a school project on campus, prompting investigations by Toronto police and the university’s Investigations and Crime Prevention Office.

Referring to the graffiti, Ryerson President Sheldon Levy stated:

We are shocked and saddened….Graffiti of this nature is absolutely unacceptable at Ryerson and has no place on our campus or anywhere else. We are committed to providing a civil and safe environment which is free of discrimination, harassment, and hate, and is respectful of the rights, responsibilities, well-being and dignity of all its members.

Despite the rebuke to such blatant anti-Semitism, there still lurks a more subtle and dangerous new anti-semitism that is paraded as dissent in political opinion, but that aims to delegitimize the state of Israel.

I had the unfortunate firsthand experience of a display of this phenomenon — albeit a seemingly mild version — during a speech I gave before an adult part-time class at Ryerson University on November 9. Also speaking was the executive director of a Christian Zionist organization. The professor who invited us did a stellar job at keeping balance and poise in the midst of unreasonable “student” attacks against the state of Israel, and some aimed at me personally.

The experience I will recount is one that is far too often justified by reference to the Palestinian plight, and is also minimized by those who undermine the peril of this subtle form of new antisemitism.

My speech encompassed the justification of support for Israel beyond “the Bible said so,” with references to the two-state solution delineated long ago by the League of Nations, to which Arab states still took offense, as they rejected Israel’s very existence — despite the British partition plan favoring the Arabs – and thus attacked the Jewish State it upon its birth in 1948. My co-speaker was her usual charming self as she discussed the fine work of her Christian Zionist organization. Then came my segment, which was more about the blend and crossover between religion and politics with regards to Israel.

It was stunning to witness the spectacle of a significant number of audience members virulently against the state of Israel with no justification, rhyme or reason, and most critically, no apparent recognition of why Israel needs to defend itself from obliteration. When challenged to explain their positions, they could offer no explanation for their views beyond “you’re passionate, you’re religious….you’re one-sided,” or “I find it hard to listen to a one-sided approach.” The obsession with the “occupied territories,” “the fence,” “the expansion of settlements in East Jerusalem,” and the “poverty of Palestinians is because of Israel” was obscene in the face of Israel’s struggle to exist, not to mention the deadly Hamas, PA and Fatah Charters seeking Israel’s obliteration; the persecution of Christians in Bethlehem; the stabbings in Jerusalem; the rocket attacks; the Muslim women and children human shields used by Hamas; and so on. One woman talked with disdain about her “evangelical brother,” whom she found to be ignorant and bigoted, as she implicitly accused me of being an ignorant evangelical who blindly supported what she portrayed as the criminal state of Israel, but gave no evidence when asked to explain and elaborate upon her thoughts.

She and her fellow Israel-haters didn’t even care that Abbas announced that there would not be one Jew in a Palestinian state (a demonstration of pure hatred and apartheid), or that Abbas did his PhD in Holocaust denial. It was as though these folks were deaf, dumb and blind to history and the current realities of Israel’s existential threat as well as the grave sufferings being endured by the persecuted Church in Islamic states and in Bethlehem, from which Christians have been driven out.

Given plenty of opportunity and encouragement to address exactly what in the points I had made that the “students” thought was flawed, they had no answer or even any desire to examine the issues fairly in search of truth, but instead persisted with a brazen display of raw anti-Semitism disguised as caring about the Palestinians. Not even one question was posed during the speech (or Question and Answer period) about to where the 31 billion dollars of aid that the West gave to the Palestinian Authority vanished. I will answer now: much went to funding terrorism, for starters, which included reward blood money to terrorists who successfully murdered innocent Israelis.

When the bright Ryerson Professor posed a question to an attendee about whether it would really make any significant difference if Israel stopped its expansion of settlements in East Jerusalem, the answer was that at least people would not be as upset. The ludicrousness of this answer was perplexing.

I was surprised at the end of my presentation by a surprising nice round of applause, as well as by the sudden appearance of many in support of Israel that I wished had spoken up more.

What nation on the face of the earth faces obliteration by Islamic regimes, on top of unjustified and venomous attacks from Western critics who enjoy their safety at home — and in Israel, were it not for jihadists — and who would be murdered if they even so much as openly expressed their views about freedom of religion or rights for women and gays in the despotic territories surrounding Israel? A question to contemplate: Israel has habitually tried to make friends out of its foes; has it worked?

I posted this first-hand experience on Facebook, and one of the comments by an Israeli Defense and security specialist displayed some insights into raw truth:

Don’t we know this? We did warn the world about ISIS. We did warn the world about  aviation and airport security. We did warn the world about border security. Did anyone listen? Of course not!!!!

Four decades ago, the renowned professor Bernard Lewis wrote that an “ominous phrase” was heard immediately preceding the Six-Day War in 1967: “First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people.’” In an era of rising jihadist infiltration into Western civilization, let’s hope that leaders and campus authorities can begin deciphering the meaning and profundity of such a statement in the face of stark and mounting evidence.

Christine Williams is an award winning Canadian journalist and public relations consultant. She is also an appointee of the Canadian government.

RELATED ARTICLES:

New Iranian-Backed Terror Group Makes Inroads in West Bank, Gaza

IAEA certifies Iran’s compliance with nuke deal, U.S., EU lift sanctions

Munich pools issue leaflets telling migrants not to grope women

PODCAST: The Dangers of the Iran Nuclear and Missile Deals

/in , , , , , /by

LISTEN to this podcast of the January 17, 2016 Lisa Benson Show with Claudia Rosett on KKNT 960 – The Patriot. Lisa Benson and New English Review Senior Editor Jerry Gordon co-hosted this show with commentary from Board of Advisors member, Richard Cutting.

On Saturday, January 16, 2016 there was a plethora of breaking news. It was kicked off with the lifting of sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program triggered by alleged compliance with terms of the JCPOA political agreement certified by the UN watchdog agency, the IAEA.  This was the Orwellian “implementation Day” under the unsigned agreement by all of the parties to JCOPA starting 24/7 monitoring of Iranian enrichment facilities.  There was the announcement from Tehran  of  the swap of  five US citizens held hostage in Iran  in exchange for  Clemency granted by President Obama  for  seven Iranians convicted or charged with industrial espionage and acquisition of illicit equipment and software for nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Sunday morning, January 17, 2016 there were further developments; the announcement by   the US Treasury Office e for Foreign Assets Control of new sanctions against 11 individuals and entities in Iran involved with illicit procurement  for ballistic missile development. Iran had launched two precision guided ballistic missiles in tests in October and November 2015 that violated UN Res. 1929 and JCPOA provisions arousing the ire of Congress.

President Obama in remarks on these developments, released on Sunday, said:

“Today’s progress — Americans coming home, an Iran that has rolled back its nuclear program and accepted unprecedented monitoring of that program — these things are a reminder of what we can achieve when we lead with strength and with wisdom; with courage and resolve and patience. America can do, and has done, big things when we work together”.

Watch the President’s  YouTube video remarks on this alleged historic political deal  purportedly preventing Iran  from developing nuclear weapons:

To complicate matters there was seizure of 10 U.S. Navy sailors and their Riverine Command boats coincidental with the President’s State of the Union Address before Congress on Tuesday, January 12th. Iran flashed video and pictures of the crews kneeling with hands behind their heads at gunpoint held by IRGC soldiers followed with an apology by the young commander for entering Iranian controlled waters off Farsi Island in the Persian Gulf. Earlier on January 6th, a mini earthquake registering 5.5 on the Richter scale was picked by the several seismographic agencies in China, Japan and the US signaling the fourth in a series of illicit nuclear blasts by North Korea. That immediately led to the question of whether it was a mini-hydrogen bomb as promoted in propaganda by Pyongyang or perhaps a test of nuclear warheads. Warheads capable of being fitted on missiles that North Korea had developed and sold to Iran.

In anticipation of these developments we had asked recommendations from a valued guest of the Lisa Benson broadcasts, Shoshana Bryen , senior director of the Washington, DC  Jewish Policy Center as to who we might bring on to comment on these developments and the Iran – North Korea  strategic alliance. She suggested we contact Claudia Rosett, Journalist in Residence at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.  We followed up on her suggestion and arranged to have Rosett as our guest on the Sunday, January 17th broadcast. That was a fortunate coincident. We had met Rosett in 2009 at a presentation she gave in Pensacola, Florida on the official corruption in the UN Oil for Food program. See our New English Review article; “Claudia Rosett: The UN is Absolutely Corrupt” (February 2009).

Claudia Rosett Journalist-in-Residence Foundation for Defense of Democracy.

Claudia Rosett is an award-winning reporter and commentator. Over the past 35 years, including 18 years as a staff writer for The Wall Street Journal from 1984-2002, she reported from Asia, the former Soviet Union, Latin America and the Middle East. Ms. Rosett has testified before six U.S. Congressional committees on topics including corruption under the United Nations Oil-for-Food program in Iraq, and the strategic alliance between North Korea and Iran. Currently she is focused on illicit networks of Iran and North Korea, including shipping traffic. Ms. Rosett holds a B.A. from Yale, an M.A. from Columbia, and an M.B.A. from the University of Chicago, with a specialization in finance.

Here are some of the high points raised by Rosett during the Lisa Benson Show broadcast:

  • Iran never signed the nuclear deal now being implemented, nor did any of the other parties (the U.S., U.K., France, Russia, China, and Germany).
  • This is not a lasting or enforceable deal.
  • IAEA monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program guarantees nothing. The IAEA has no power to enforce, only to monitor. Iran can play the same game of chicken as North Korea did, throwing  out IAEA monitors when convenient, and carrying on to make nuclear bombs.
  • In the deals now going on, both nuclear and the hostage/prisoner releases this past weekend, Iran is cleaning up.
  • Remember, Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. The real headline should be: Return of some $100 billion in unfrozen funds to world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.
  • Iran carried out two sanctions-violating ballistic missile tests this past fall; the only real reason Iran to continue developing ballistic missiles would be to put nuclear warheads on them.
  • President Obama, in deciding which Iranians to release in the hostage/prisoner swap, ruled out prisoners detained for terrorism and violent crime, but released violators of sanctions in other words; he pardoned people some of whom had abetted Iran’s weapons and nuclear programs. A damaging signal that the U.S. is not serious about enforcing this nuclear deal.
  • Iran will now be able to access roughly $100 billion, or by some accounts more, in unfrozen funds though the actual amount remains murky.  We have never been given a full accounting of these funds.
  • There has been deliberate obfuscation by the Obama Administration on the terms of this nuclear deal (the secret side agreements between Iran and the IAEA, for instance) as well as the consequences.
  • The possibility of Iran and North Korea working together on nuclear missiles is a serious concern. In the 21st century, North Korea is the only country known to have tested nuclear weapons. It is the obvious place for the Iranians to hide a nuclear test, or benefit from the data, in plain sight.
  • Israel’s air force destroyed the Al Kibar nuclear reactor that was being built in Syria with substantial help from North Korea. The U.S. should have allowed a similar strike against Iran some time ago, or the U.S. should have carried one out itself.
  • We have just seen U.S. sailors detained on their knees before the Iranians before they were released. When have we seen members of the Iranian military on their knees before the U.S?  Iran is humiliating America. This is an invitation to other enemies of America to do the same.

The Iran deal is worse than the nuclear deals the U.S. cut with North Korea.  North Korea has been making nuclear weapons and conducted four nuclear tests. Iran is even more dangerous, and the consequences here could be much worse.

Our usually astute European listener commented with his opinions:

The Iranian deal agreed and pushed forward by the Obama administration gave in to all Iranian demands and the nuclear watchdog deal by the IAEA is a complete sham. As mentioned numerous times the Iranians have in undisclosed parts of Iran three other nuclear research sites which have never been checked on and where they are continuing enrichment.

The JCPOA is a draft which was to be negotiated and approved but nothing was discussed and the addendums were all kept top secret.

For the P5 the whole deal is a way to boost their trade deficits and they accepted everything that the Obama Administration and the Iranians agreed on.

The IAEA made a complete flop of their controls in North Korea and the same could occur in Iran.

It has been that North Korea is being financed by Iran and they could easily sell nuclear warheads and ship them by plane to Iran.

I sincerely hope that some lawmakers in the U.S. have listened to this broadcast and will take the necessary steps to block the Iranian agreement after the elections.

RELATED ARTICLE: World Watches How Iran, Now Free of Nuclear Sanctions, Will Act

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

Bill to Designate Muslim Brotherhood as Terror Organization Gains Support

/in , , , , /by

Ten more members of Congress have agreed to cosponsor the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2015 since our last update. The legislation identifies three U.S. – based groups — including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) —  as part of the Brotherhood network linked to financing Hamas.

If passed, the bill would state that Congress believes the Muslim Brotherhood fits the State Department’s criteria of a Foreign Terrorist Organization. The Secretary of State would be required to designate the Brotherhood within 60 days or to provide a detailed report explaining why it does not. Three U.S.-based Brotherhood entities named in the bill are CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).

The House version of the bill (HR3892) was introduced by Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) with Reps. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Randy K. Weber (R-TX), Diane Black (R-TN) and Mike Pompeo (R-KS) as original cosponsors. They are now joined by Reps. Steve King (R-IA); Steven Palazzo (R-MS); Kay Granger (R-TX); Jim Jordan (R-OH); Steve Stivers (R-OH); Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA); Ilena Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL); Charles W. Dent (R-PA); Bill Johnson (R-OH) and David A. Trott (R-MI).

HR3892 was referred to the Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security on December 4, 2015. Two cosponsors, Rep. Gohmert and Rep. Trott, sit on that subcommittee.

The Senate version of the bill (S2230) was introduced by presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and later cosponsored by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT). It was referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on November 3. Two of Senator Cruz’s presidential rivals, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) sit on that committee and have not taken a position on the bill.

Although the bill has yet to earn bi-partisan support at this early stage, it is supported by members of Congress from different spectrums of the Republican Party. It includes endorsers of the presidential campaigns of Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush and John Kasich and not only supporters of Ted Cruz.

As our original article about the legislation explained, the bill could be a watershed moment in the fight against Islamist extremism. It is important for voters to know where their representatives stand on this important issue.

We encourage readers to contact their representatives and Senators and ask them for a position statement. Please forward any official statement to the Clarion Project so we can update readers on where they stand on the Muslim Brotherhood. A statement of opposition is just as important as a statement of support.

Of particular interest are the members of Congress who are assigned to the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Below is a table of those who sit on those committees and have yet to take a position:

House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration & Border Security Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Ken Buck (R-CO) Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Trey Gowdy (R-SC), Chairman John Barrasso (R-WY)
Luis Gutirrez (D-IL) Ben Cardin (D-MD); Ranking Member
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) Christopher Coons (D-DE)
Raul Labrador (R-ID), Vice Chairman Bob Corker (R-TN); Chairman
Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
Pedro Pierluisi (D-PR) Cory Gardner (R-CO)
John Ratcliffe (R-TX) Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Tim Kaine (D-VA)
Edward Markey (D-WA)
Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
Chris Murphy (D-CT)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
David Perdue (R-GA)
James Risch (R-ID)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)

Tom Udall (D-NM)

RELATED ARTICLES:

Three Americans Kidnapped in Baghdad

Rough & Smooth: Iran Sanctions Lifted; Frees 5 American Prisoners

Iran Captures and Releases U.S. Sailors: the Back Story

Gitmo ‘High-Risk’ Prisoner Released; Vows to Kill Americans

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of CAIR Founder and Executive Director Nihad Awad (right) with Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s spokesperson and national communications director. (Photo: © Reuters)

VIDEO: Muslim ‘Rape Culture’ Threatens European Women

/in , , , , , , /by

New Year’s Eve in Cologne, Germany saw an unprecedented number of sexual assaults against German women.  This, of course, is just one example of a trend occurring across Europe after an influx of Middle Eastern and North African refugees.

Vienna Police Chief Gerhard Purstl warned, “Women should in general not go out on the streets at night alone, they should avoid suspicious looking areas and also when in pubs and clubs should only accept drinks from people they know.”

While Purstl’s advice has been met with backlash, mainly from feminists who reject the initial stance that women should need to be more careful, the question remains, why is this happening?

The origin of these exceedingly violent sexual attacks, known as taharrush–gang gropings and rapes–can be traced back to the Egyptian Revolution, which followed the fall of then Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak.

Angie Abdelmonem, a doctoral candidate at Arizona State University, who recently published a study regarding instances of taharrush during the Egyptian Revolution, stated, “Between 2011 and 2013, sexual harassment became common at protests in Tahrir Square, exemplified by a number of highly publicized violent attacks that demonstrate how women’s bodies became objectified and dehumanized during the uprising.”

Egypt has been a hotbed of sexual harassment, usually verbal, for a long time, but something about the uprising and forced resignation of Mubarak sparked the physical and more violent taharrush.

Some analysts believe taharrush to be a product of North-African men, not necessarily Middle-Eastern or Muslim men.  It is unclear why this is the case, except for the fact that North Africa, especially Egypt, is home to a patriarchal society that permits or at least to some extent turns a blind eye to sexual harassment against women.

Since Egyptian society refuses to give women independence from men, it presumably makes it easier for women to be viewed as objects instead of people. This, coupled with the destabilization of the Egyptian government, seem to be the most plausible factors that created the type of environment necessary for this particularly violent kind of sexual assault to manifest.

This is just one filmed example of recent sexual harassment of women in Europe:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Syrian Husband Offers Wife’s Rape for Passage to Europe

ISIS May Be Printing Syrian Passports With Seized Machine

ISIS Wants to Carry Out a WMD Attack in Europe

Euro MPs: Don’t Use Border Controls to Fight Terror

Convert to Islam tries to take her 4-year-old son to join the Islamic State

/in , , , , , /by

The boy’s Muslim father is shocked! shocked! that this happened, and the Daily Mail takes for granted that this woman’s conversion to Islam had nothing whatsoever to do with her deciding to join the Islamic State. That all came later, when she was “brainwashed.” But if Franziska Mirella had never converted to Islam in the first place, would she have been susceptible to that “brainwashing”?

Franziska Mirella

Franziska Mirella before converting to Islam. Photo: CEN

“Swiss Muslim-convert mother is stopped at Turkish border trying to take her four-year-old boy to Syria to join ISIS after she was brainwashed by jihadists online,” by Tom Wyke, MailOnline, January 15, 2016 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

A Swiss Muslim-convert has been arrested at the Turkish border on suspicion of intending to take her four-year-old son to Syria after being radicalised online by ISIS.

Franziska Mirella, 29, has been sent back to Switzerland where she could face trial for supporting a banned terror organisation.

Her Egyptian husband, Mahmoud, has been awarded custody of their four-year-old son Adam.

Franziska converted to Islam when she married her husband Mahmoud and moved to his homeland, Egypt.

While living in Egypt, she had started to follow increasingly radical Islamic services on the Internet, and according to her husband had come into contact with jihadists via social media.

Adam, 4-year old son of Franziska Mirella. Photo: CEN

Mahmoud, who married Franziska five years ago, said online jihadi supporters had convinced his wife that he was not a true Muslim.

They persuaded her together with her son to come to Syria in order to live under the caliphate.

Her family confirmed that she had started behaving strangely, even changing her name to Umm Adam, which means simply mother of Adam.

Franziska threw out all her son’s toys, deeming them ‘un-Islamic’ and banned him from watching television. Finally she sold everything she owned in order to fund their trip to Syria.

But the wannabe jihadi bride was stopped heading across the border from Greece into Turkey on her journey to Syria after her husband raised the alarm….

RELATED ARTICLES:

U.S. to release $400 million in frozen funds to Iran, plus $1.3 billion in interest

Germany: Muslims arrested for stoning transgender women