Posts

Man arrested for asking Muslim woman to ‘explain Brussels’

Arguably, Matthew Doyle was rude to confront a stranger, or even, in his later version, to ask her politely to explain something with which she had no involvement. He was clumsily expressing the frustration that many non-Muslims feel over the general failure of Muslim communities in the West to do much of anything to stop the jihad violence they say they condemn. Where, as I have asked hundreds of times, are their programs to prevent young Muslims from adhering to the Islamic State’s understanding of Islam? If they really reject that understanding, these should be everywhere.

One might call Doyle obnoxious, boorish, ham-fisted, whatever. But to arrest him for this is shocking, and demonstrates how much Britain has degenerated. Now being impertinent or unkind to a Muslim on the street is a crime? If so, then the UK is well on its way to adopting the rest of Sharia, and its days as a free nation are over. Also, how many Muslims have been arrested in Britain for asking non-Muslims rude questions?

Matthew_Doyle

“Croydon man arrested after confronting Muslim woman and telling her to ‘explain Brussels,’” by Adam Boult, Telegraph, March 23, 2016:

A man who tweeted about stopping a Muslim woman in the street yesterday, challenging her to “explain Brussels”, and lambasted on Twitter for his comments, has responded to the criticism today, insisting he is not some ‘far right merchant’.

Matthew Doyle, partner at a south London-based talent & PR agency, posted a tweet on Wednesday morning saying: “I confronted a Muslim woman in Croydon yesterday. I asked her to explain Brussels. She said ‘nothing to do with me’. A mealy mouthed reply.”

He was later arrested.

His tweet referred to yesterday’s bomb attacks on the Belgian capital’s main airport and Metro system that left at least 34 people dead and 198 injured. His comment went viral, being retweeted hundreds of times before he eventually deleted it.

Mr Doyle told the Telegraph he had no idea his tweet would be the “hand grenade” it has proven to be – and that Twitter’s 140 character limit made the encounter sound vastly different to how he thought it went.

“What everyone’s got wrong about this is I didn’t confront the woman,” he said. “I just said: ‘Excuse me, can I ask what you thought about the incident in Brussels?’”

“She was white, and British, wearing a hijab – and she told me it was nothing to do with her.

“I said ‘thank you for explaining that’ – and her little boy said goodbye to me as we went out separate ways.”

On Wednesday afternoon, he says, someone who’s been outraged by his comments “turned up at my door, gave me a load of abuse and tried to throw a punch at me.”

As for his more inflammatory tweets, Mr Doyle claims they’re intended as a joke, which people who know him would understand as “that’s absolutely not who I am.”

“I’m not some far-right merchant, I’m not a mouthpiece for any kind of racism or radicalism,” he says. “If I was xenophobic I wouldn’t live in London.

“I have a Muslim neighbour who got burgled, and I was one of the first people to go around to help.”

However, he says he does believe Muslims aren’t doing enough to speak out against terrorism.

“The horror that happened in Brussels could happen here,” he adds, “and your naive if you think London isn’t on some terror shortlist.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Robert Spencer in PJ Media: Hillary vs. Jihad: A Nightmare Scenario

Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch: “Christ was born in Palestine!”

WaPo blames Trump’s, not Obama’s, foreign policy for Brussels slaughter?

The mainstream media gets more absurd by the day. When did Donald Trump become President?

The policies he is advocating are not now being implemented, so there is no conceivable way that the Brussels jihad massacre can be blamed upon them, or taken as any indication that they would not be effective (which is not necessarily to say that they would be). After all, there is actually another fellow who is President of the United States right now; if the Brussels jihad massacre is a rebuke to anyone’s foreign policy, it is his and his alone. But the Washington Post, like the rest of the mainstream media, will never have the slightest negative word to say about the current occupant of the Oval Office, no matter how much he downplays the jihad threat and enables jihadis.

Brussels police

“The horror in Brussels is a rebuke to Trump’s foreign policy,” Washington Post editorial, March 22, 2016:

THE TERRORIST assault on Brussels Tuesday, just four days after the arrest of an architect of last year’s attacks in Paris, underlined the resilience and continued menace of the Islamic State — to Europe, to the United States and to vital Western interests. It also revealed a crucial divide among U.S. presidential candidates about what this country must do to protect itself.

One one side are those who support the internationalist response of President Obama, who said the United States “will do whatever is necessary to support our friend and ally Belgium,” and who asserted that “we must be together, regardless of nationality or race or faith, in fighting against the scourge of terrorism.” That view was broadly shared by Democrats Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders and Republican John Kasich.

Against them is the radical isolationism of Donald Trump, from whom the Brussels bloodshed prompted another call to “close up our borders,” and who on Monday questioned the value of U.S. support for NATO allies such as Belgium. Though GOP rival Ted Cruz rejected Mr. Trump’s position on NATO, his answer to Brussels was similar: He, too, stressed “secur[ing] the southern border” and curtailing refu­gee flows, along with patrols of “Muslim neighborhoods.”

More than at any time since 1940, America’s commitment to its European allies is at issue in a presidential campaign. The tragic events of Brussels illuminate the folly of Mr. Trump’s position. The Islamic State has targeted all Western democracies, along with Israel and the Sunni states of the Middle East; it regards Belgians and Americans equally as enemies. Destroying the group — as Mr. Trump says is necessary — cannot be done without fighting its tendrils wherever they appear — in Europe as well as the Middle East, in Africa and in cyberspace. However much they are reinforced, borders will provide no protection to Americans if the jihadists are not defeated elsewhere.

Mr. Trump protests that NATO “is costing us a fortune” and that the United States is no longer a rich country. Never mind that the nation is far richer than it was when the alliance was set up in 1949, or that the national debt as well as spending on defense are lower as a portion of the economy. To defeat the Islamic State without NATO’s help would impose huge costs on Americans. Britain, France and Germany, among others, contribute materially to the war against the terrorist entity in Iraq and Syria, not to mention NATO member Turkey.

Intelligence sharing among the allies is critical to disrupting plots in the United States as well as elsewhere. Mr. Trump told us he saw no advantage to U.S. foreign bases; yet without those provided by Turkey, the air campaign in Iraq and Syria would be far less effective….

It’s effective?

RELATED ARTICLES:

Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch: “Christ was born in Palestine!”

Belgian cops asked Muslims for help in finding jihad bombers and were ignored

It’s time for the Governments of Europe to Fall

It’s time for votes of no-confidence. It’s time for the governments of Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and more to fall. I’m not talking about violent revolution. There are mechanisms for the peaceful replacement of governments in most European nations at times when the existing government is seen widely to be inadequate for the task at hand. It is time to put those mechanisms to use. The existing governments are responsible for policies that have turned Europe into a war zone, and that war is just beginning. The political and media elites have failed Europe and the free world, and put Europe on a course toward civil war and bloodshed unseen on the continent since the days of Hitler.

A new Hitler is in Europe. It is not Donald Trump. It is not the “right-wing.” The new Hitler is very much like the old Hitler: he hates Jews. He has contempt for the historical patrimony of Western civilization. He means to rule by an iron fist and subordinate every other power to his will. He respects only strength, and despises weakness. The new Hitler is not just one man, but millions — millions who believe in an ideology that teaches warfare against and subjugation of free people under its heel.

Historically, Europe saw the threat that the men who held to this ideology posed, and shed blood to resist their advance. Now, the sons and heirs of those who gave their lives to make sure their children and their children’s children would live free have flung open the gates and invited in those who would enslave them. They have invited them into their countries in massive numbers, and vilified and ostracized anyone who dared note the lessons of history and the content of the invaders’ ideology.

This morning, as a result of these policies, Brussels is engulfed in chaos and the grief of blood shed in war. There will be much, much more to come of this.

It is time to sweep them out. All of them: the multiculturalists, the cultural relativists, the internationalists, the levellers, the elites who have brought this death and destruction upon Brussels today, and Paris yesterday, and the rest of Europe tomorrow. Europe, if it is to survive as a home of free people, must turn out its entire political and media establishment. This can still be done peacefully, and must be done quickly. If Europe is to survive as a home of free people, it needs governments who recognize that the “refugees” storming into their countries now include an untold number of jihad murderers who mean to kill their people and destroy their societies, and who have the courage to stand up and stop that refugee flow, and turn it back. Saudi Arabia has tens of thousands of air-conditioned tents for hajj pilgrims, and not one refugee. Why? Because they have noted, correctly, that there are jihad terrorists among the refugees.

Can Saudi Arabia protect itself and Europe cannot?

This is a war. It is a war for survival. It is a war that will determine whether Europe (and North America is not far behind) will live in freedom or slavery. The present European political and media elites are inviting the slavery of their people. They must be soundly repudiated. Too much is at stake to continue to countenance their self-delusion and fantasy. Those who are struggling to survive cannot afford to be unrealistic about what they’re facing. In the United States also, we need leaders who will speak honestly about the nature and magnitude of the war we’re in. Surely there are some people in Europe who are both able to lead and willing to tell the truth. It is time for them to be peacefully installed in power — before it’s too late, as it very soon will be.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Brussels Attack Not because of the Palestinian ‘occupation’

Hillary Clinton: US response to Brussels jihad mass murders must be “consistent with our values”

Islamic State supporters on social media scream “Allahu akbar,” celebrate Brussels jihad mass murders

Brussels: What We Can Learn From Today’s Slaughter

Today, terrorists attacked Brussels both the airport and a metro station in the center of the city. Here’s what we can learn from the attacks.

Europe is reeling from the latest terrorist attacks, this time against Brussels, now confirmed to be a terrorist attacks.  Three blasts have been reported so far, two in the Zaventem airport and one at the Maelbeek metro station some 500 meters from the European Parliament.

Here are three takeaways from this most recent tragic attack.

This Fight Impacts Everyone

The attack in Brussels follows Saturday’s attack on Istanbul by an Islamic State suicide bomber that killed four. Countries attacked so far this year by Islamist terrorist either working for groups or in lone wolf attacks (and remember it’s only March) include:

That’s attacks on 26 countries across North America, South America, Europe, Africa, the Middle East and East Asia in just three months. This is a problem everywhere. It is no longer possible to argue it doesn’t impact you or that there is nothing you can do about it.

Terrorism Works If You Let it

This one is difficult to internalize. Terrorism operates by creating an outsized reaction to a highly publicized event. It works to create “terror” in a population by stripping citizens of their feeling of safety, inculcating an atmosphere where people feel they can be attacked anywhere and at any time.

Societies respond with security measures designed to protect the citizenry and these can at times be heavy handed and worsen community relations, driving more people into the arms of terrorist groups. Public confusion and panic exacerbates the problem. One of the aims of groups like the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) is to create a backlash of anti-Muslim bigotry and thus instigate a war between Muslims and everyone else. Chaos, hatred and confusion is the favored working environment of terrorists and Islamists since it enables them to advance their goals under the cover of the fog of war.

Muslim and non-Muslim groups working together against terrorism and the Islamist ideology which spawns it (as distinct from the religion of Islam) in a firm, calm and unified manner is therefore essential to a counter-extremism strategy in civil society.

This will not stop until the ideology is defeated

The countries that have been attacked do not share a cohesive foreign policy platform or common causes except being opposed to the ideology of Islamism.

This Islamist ideology, which seeks to conquer the world and implement sharia governance under a theocratic Islamist caliphate gives people who are drawn to acts of violence an outlet for their grievances and an opportunity to justify crimes on an international scale.

In addition to the military steps needed to tackle violent groups, an international civil society effort to correctly label, deconstruct and intellectually discredit the underlying ideology that justifies such heinous acts will bring an end to the international wave of violence committed in its name.

Elliot Friedland is a research fellow at Clarion Project.

RELATED ARTICLES:

90 More Suicide Bombers Ready to Attack Europe

Salah Abdeslam: The Face of Europe’s New Jihadis

Neighbors Attack Belgian Police as They Capture Paris Bomber

Girl Refusing to Wear Hijab Sparks Riot at Migrant Center

South Carolina: Bill would hold sponsors liable if Muslim migrants commit crimes

If you try to protect yourself from a jihad terror attack, you’re liable to be called “un-American” by Hamas-linked CAIR’s Ibrahim “Honest Ibe” Hooper. Foes of the bill “say the measure is out of character for a state that often espouses the importance of Christian hospitality and loving your neighbor.” Is Christian hospitality, then, a mandate for suicide? A Christian must be hospitable even if doing so exposes him to deadly risk? Trying to prevent possible jihad terror attacks makes one un-Christian and un-American?

“South Carolina, New York State consider refugee registries,” by Jeffrey Collins, Associated Press, March 19, 2016:

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — While Republican front-runner Donald Trump continues to make waves nationally for his comments about banning Muslims from traveling to the country, lawmakers in two very different states are proposing that all refugees register with the government.

Registration bills are being proposed in both New York State and in South Carolina, where if refugees commit an act of terrorism, their sponsors, under the bill, could be held liable.

The South Carolina lawmakers say they are less concerned about a possible constitutional challenge than a possible terrorist threat coming to the state.

Opponents, however, say the measure is out of character for a state that often espouses the importance of Christian hospitality and loving your neighbor.

“I want us to be who we have always been — a welcoming people,” said Sen. Kevin Johnson, D-Manning, who is helping lead the fight against the bill.

Sponsoring Sen. Kevin Bryant said the bill has three components: a registry of all refugees; civil liability for sponsors of refugees from counties considered state sponsors of terror by the federal government (currently Iran, Sudan and Syria) for crimes committed by refugees; a prohibition on the state spending any money on refugees and their families.

Bryant said the goal of the bill is to protect people’s safety. Nearly 850 refugees from a number of countries in Europe, Africa and the Middle East have come to South Carolina since 2010, with 87 arriving since last summer. The Anderson Republican said if only one of them were to conduct a terrorist attack it would be devastating.

Instead, he said people in South Carolina can show their compassion by giving to relief organizations that help refugees elsewhere.

“Why should we bring one refugee here when we could spend the same money and help 10 in their part of the world?” Bryant said.

A challenge to the South Carolina law is likely because the law singles people out by county of origin and seems bent toward discriminating against Muslims, said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the [Hamas-linked] Council on American-Islamic Relations.

“If it is not illegal, it is at least un-American,” Hooper said….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Jewish students frequently harassed and assaulted during Israeli Apartheid Week

Columbus, Ohio’s Nazareth Restaurant, site of jihad terror attack in February, is going strong

Exclusive Video Of Muslim Terrorist Who Stabbed Taylor Force and was Killed in Tel-Aviv

TheUnitedWest.org has obtained never before seen footage of the terrorist attack in Tel Aviv where a devout Muslim went on a crazed Jihad stabbing fest in Israel wounding a dozen and killing one American, Taylor Force, a U.S. Army combat veteran and Vanderbilt University graduate student.

MK Dov Lipman participates in a goodbye ceremony for the American citizen killed in a stabbing terror attack in Jaffa this week, as his body is sent back to be buried in the United States, at the Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv, March 11, 2016. Photo by Flash90 *** Local Caption *** ???? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ???

MK Dov Lipman participates in a goodbye ceremony for the American citizen Taylor Force killed in a stabbing terror attack in Jaffa this week, as his body is sent back to be buried in the United States, at the Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv, March 11, 2016. Photo by Flash90

 

Taylor Force (right) the 29-year old pictured with his sister Kristen. Taylor was a student at the Vanderbilt University Owen Graduate-School of Management.

This video shows the end result of one Muslim dedicated to the prophet Mohammad versus a hail of bullets from Israeli police.

Follow The United West on Twitter @TheUnitedWest.

RELATED ARTICLE: U.S. Media Ignore Tel Aviv Shooter’s Plan to Attack Israeli Kindergartens

#ChicagoThugs, #PatheticInChicago, #ChicagoFailure

Who can forget the clueless thugs protesting last May in the streets of Ferguson, Missouri, holding up their brand new shiny placards––hmm, where did those pricey things come from?––and expressing rage at….what?

  • Not at the lack of esteem they believed white America owed to the black-lives-matter movement.
  • Not at the shooting a year earlier of Michael Brown (for which police officer Darren Wilson was exonerated by a Grand Jury) or the phony “hands-up/don’t shoot” mantra.
  • Not at the devastating fact that under Barack Obama the unemployment figures for African-Americans were––and remain––at record sky-high levels. According to Larry Elder at Townhall.com, “By every key economic measurement, blacks are worse off under Obama…in some cases, far worse off.”
  • Not at the tragic fact that black-on-black crime was––and remains––the single biggest killer in the black community (other than abortion).

Oh no. They were protesting because the anarchic, hate-America moneybags who bribed or rather enticed them to show up and act out didn’t pay them! Reportedly, some of the protesters “who looted, rioted, burned buildings and overturned police cars….were promised up to $5,000 per month to join the protests.”

That’s right, according to Newsmax.com, “Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment (MORE), the successor group to the now-bankrupt St. Louis branch of ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), stiffed the protesters.”

So much for the high-minded ideology that drove these unemployed know-nothings into the streets!

OLD BOTTLE, SAME WINE

This is exactly what we just witnessed in Chicago on Friday night, March 11th, as a bunch of protestors––both black and white––were convinced for a pittance or for a pile of dough to act like hyperactive children off their Ritalin in order to disrupt a massive rally, anticipated to be attended by over 25,000, for presidential-frontrunner Donald J. Trump. It was hilarious to see the protestors, when asked by reporters why they were there, robotically announce, “I’d rather not give my reasons.” Translation: I have no clue why I’m here, but I’m making a few bucks, so what the hey!

The venue was perfect, wasn’t it?––the home of the arch community organizer Barack Obama, who before his ignominious, race-baiting, hate-whitey, loathe-the-opposition tenure in the White House, specialized in fomenting the same kind of protests, almost all of them to bring down “the man.” The goal, of course, has always been to extort money from individuals or corporations perceived to be “racist,” to create or reinforce in the protestors the notion that they are perpetual victims, and to convince them to vote for Democrats who promise to address their grievances––but never do. The net result: The cities in America with the highest crime rates share one thing in common––each one has a Democrat mayor!

In Democrat-run Chicago, the rich, hate-America radicals behind the anti-Trump protest, including MoveOn.org ––as well as behind Occupy Wall St., Black Lives Matter, etc.––were trying to take down the ultimate man, the Big Kahuna, the billionaire the protestors all long to be like but instead can’t help envying.

Is this the very definition of stupid? Mr. Trump is offering America a way out of poverty, a return to a rich, vibrant, successful, flourishing America, but these mal-educated protesters––thank you Common Core and all the other dumb-America-down liberal education programs of the past 50 years––would rather stick to their self-defeating ways than to wake up and smell the coffee.

According to radio host and writer Douglas V. Gibbs, the “Chicago protests were not about Trump” but were rather “an attempt to silence opposition to liberal left politics.” If Cruz had been the frontrunner, Gibbs says, he would have been the target.

Gibbs explains that in the style of the career agitator, socialist Saul Alinsky, the protestors “want violence…they want riots…they think it is chic. These people remind us of the agitators [who] brought about the French Revolution, or the Bolsheviks who brought about the Russian Revolution…angry, violent, and trained to believe the same poppycock that has brought down a long list of republics in history––and failed every time.”

Gibbs compliments Trump’s refusal to “feed the beast” by cancelling the event, no doubt driving the unruly horde to gather in another venue to count the money they made for the night and to indulge in an event commensurate with their maturity level, such as group thumb-sucking.

To his everlasting shame, Senator Ted Cruz joined the hysterical ranks of the Republican- establishment has-beens in blaming Donald Trump for the mob’s sideshow. So much for Mr.-I-Stand-for-the- Constitution defending Mr. Trump’s freedom of speech!

THANK YOU, VINCENTE

Last June, at the outset of his campaign for President of the United States, Mr. Trump said that one of the first things he would do was build a wall to keep illegal aliens from violating our southern border and invading our homeland––and that Mexico would pay for it! On cue, his rival candidates expressed their outrage, although now they’ve all appropriated this strategy for themselves.

Just a few weeks ago, the former president of Mexico, Vincente Fox, weighed in on that pronouncement. No way, he said, would Mexico pay “for that effing wall!”

When asked his reaction to Fox’s statement, Mr. Trump said “the wall just got 10 feet higher!”

In the same vein, a lot of Mr. Trump’s campaign promises have been met with anger, scorn, derision, vilification, and patronization, in fact most of the marginalizing tactics suggested by Saul Alinsky in his book, Rules for Radicals. The theory is that when people are insulted, they feel diminished, they lose their strength, they fade into the woodwork, sort of what Mitt Romney has done, not after being insulted but after insulting the formidable Mr. Trump. What Alinsky followers today don’t realize is that truth both negates and conquers liberal lies.

When Mr. Trump cites the massacres by Muslims on 9/11 and in France and San Bernardino and all over the world and then says we have to temporarily keep Muslims from entering the country “until we understand what’s going on,” the average person understands and agrees.

Only the politically-correct media wusses appear not to get it. But they join in the Trump bashing because their bosses order them to do so. Why? Because those same bosses have massive business dealings in the Arab world and so forbid their underlings to say anything that could hurt a burgeoning bottom line. Follow the money!

When Mr. Trump says that “I think Islam hates us,” his interviewers are stunned that someone running for public office actually realizes that the mullahs in Iran and the terrorists from Hezbollah and Hamas and the president of the so-called “Palestinian” Authority have inscribed in their mission statements the vow to eliminate the Great Satan, America, and the Little Satan, Israel. But the average person ––left, right, Democrat, Republican, black, white, Hispanic, young, old, et al––gets it and agrees with it.

That is why with every protest to Mr. Trump’s candidacy, not only does the wall get 10 feet higher, but the votes increase by the millions!

#TriumphOhio, #TriumphFlorida, #Hope.

trump protest sheet

Trump protest Q&A sheet.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Kasich co-chair on Trump: ‘You’ve got to take him out with a head shot’

ICE: 124 illegal immigrants released from jail later charged in 138 murder cases

Here’s how to define Donald Trump

EDITORS NOTE:  During the Obamacare protests, the Democratic controlled Congress amended Federal law H. R. 347 to make it illegal to protest at Federal campaign events. ALL of these anti-Trump rallies, be they violent or not, are FELONIES under this law that the U.S. Congress passed.

You may read the full text of H.R. 347 here: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr347/text

Muslim migrants film themselves gang raping 12-year-old boy

In Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Islamic world, this kind of behavior is broadly tolerated. Women are so devalued, men look to other men and boys for sexual pleasure. Also, the Qur’an promises not just virgins to the blessed, but boys like “scattered pearls”:

“Those are the ones brought near in the Gardens of Pleasure, a company of the former peoples and a few of the later peoples, on thrones woven, reclining on them, facing each other. There will circulate among them young boys made eternal with vessels, pitchers and a cup from a flowing spring.” — Qur’an 56:11-18

“And they will be given to drink a cup whose mixture is of ginger, a fountain within Paradise named Salsabeel. There will circulate among them young boys made eternal. When you see them, you would think them scattered pearls. And when you look there, you will see pleasure and great dominion.” — Qur’an 76:17-20

Sweden-refugees welcome

“Young Boy Repeatedly Raped After He Was Billeted With Migrant Men,” by Oliver JJ Lane, Breitbart, February 20, 2016 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

Two migrant men masquerading as teenagers are being prosecuted after raping a young child at a Swedish asylum centre, attacking him “ruthlessly” and even filming the assault.

The 12 year old boy was made to share a room with two others, who were said at the time to be 15 years old at the Alvesta asylum centre in Sweden. The child was subjected to at least one attempted rape, and a number of rapes by one of his room mates and another migrant at the centre, which the authorities became aware of in early January.

After police were called it become apparent the men had lied about their age — an increasingly common phenomenon in Europe as child migrants are given greater benefits than adults — and were in fact fully grown migrant males. Prosecuting the case, Emma Berge told the court a dental x-ray proved one of the men was 18 to 19 years old, and the other was certainly over the age of 18.

Investigations into the case have also revealed the raped child was not supposed to be in the home at all, as the building was only licenced to accept migrants in their later teens. Yet he was put into a private room with what they thought were older boys, and the police were not called over an earlier attempted rape.

The case is being treated as especially serious by the prosecutor as not only did the rapists film themselves attacking the boy, but they “exhibited particular ruthlessness and harshness”. As well as being prosecuted for the rapes, the men are suspected under child porn laws for making a recording.

Despite the video recording being held by the police, both men still deny they raped the child….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Saudi jihadi rehab program seeks less to give jihadis different view of Islam than to reinforce primacy of Saudi state

Southern Poverty Law Center expands its hit list of foes of jihad terror

CAIR organizes anti-Islamophobia march in Minneapolis

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by, Oliver JJ Lane | Breitbart News | h/t Glen Roberts @ Trop

Columbus, Ohio Muslim machete man still a mystery

It turns out that early reports about the African man who attacked diners in a restaurant belonging to an Israeli-born Christian may not be a Somali as first reported.  See our first report by clicking here.

So who is he?

Hany-Baransi-of-Israel-now-Ohio

Nazareth restaurant owner Hany Baransi.

Here, in a story about the restaurant re-opening, World Net Daily writer tells us that mystery still surrounds the machete man:

More than four days after the attack, little is known about Barry, a 30-year-old immigrant from Africa. Neither the FBI nor the Columbus police have released any information on his immigration status, when he came to the U.S. and from what country, under what circumstances he came, or whether he was a legal or illegal resident of this country.

According to reports, Barry led police on a five-mile chase before losing control of his car and careening off the road. He exited the vehicle with his machete and another knife, and allegedly lunged at the officers.

“He yelled, ‘Allahu Akbar!’ and then he attacked them with the machete, and that’s when they shot him and killed him,” Baransi [the restaurant owner—ed] told Tower magazine.

Please read the whole article about how Baransi is not going to cower.

If you read Ann Coulter’s book, ‘Adios America,’ she tells us much about the code of secrecy (by police/FBI) surrounding crimes committed by immigrants.  So, it is not surprising that nothing is being released so far on his immigration status.

And, by the way, in my last eight year of following stories like this one, I have never seen any mention of Gov. John Kasich of Ohio showing one bit of concern for the colonization, by the UN/U.S. State Department, of Ohio.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Nebraska bill would place financial responsibility on refugee resettlement contractors

Pittsburgh: Jewish agency and Islamic Center working together to bring more Syrians to the city

Muslim Migrant Surge: GOP Worried about Thousands Obama is “Interviewing” in Jordan to Bring Here

Shariah (Islamic) Law: Four Rape Victims Stoned to Death for Adultery

Iran rules “decadent” Valentine’s Day celebrations a crime

German asylum centers: Muslim migrants tear up Bibles, assault Christians, sexually abuse women and children, beat up gays

Daesh Jr. Strikes a Jew in Marseille

Yusuf, the young Turkish-Kurd who tried to kill a Jew in Marseille recently, was a baby when the al Dura blood libel triggered the plague of genocidal Jew hatred that besets us to this day. Back then they were avenging the “cold-blooded murder of a Palestinian youth by Israeli soldiers.” Today, fifteen years later, Yusuf X. proudly explains he saw that Palestinians were stabbing Jews in Israel and decided to follow suit in Marseille.

The blade of his machete was not sharp enough to kill Benjamin Amsellem but the Jewish schoolteacher had no doubts that his assailant was trying to decapitate him. Amsellem fought back. Yusuf lost his grip on the machete, and ran. Two men followed in hot pursuit. The police seized the aspiring killer. The initial press release, most likely from the notorious Agence France Presse, reported that a Jewish teacher was “slightly wounded” in an attack by a psychologically unbalanced youth and, curious detail, protected himself with his “torah.” I suppose they meant a book of prayers or parashot?

More honest than the press releasers, Yusuf presented his credentials: he pledges allegiance to Daesh, was carrying a ceramic knife to kill policemen, has no regrets but is ashamed that he wasn’t able to kill the Jew.

Yusuf apparently doesn’t fit into the sociological box. As far as we know he was a good student with no outward signs of radicalization. His teachers and classmates are perplexed, his family is dumbstruck. Yusuf says they are apostates. When Yusuf was a baby and Jews were being assaulted all over France, then Interior Minister Daniel Vaillant saw no evil, just a problem of rowdiness that could be treated with the usual socialistic remedies. The motto was “don’t pour oil on the fire”: If we admit there is a wave of anti-Semitic violence propagated by Muslims (but we will call them “youths”) it will only make things worse.

In January 2016, Yusuf has grown up to be an aspiring Jew & cop-killer and jihad in its myriad forms has forced its way into the public mind. This time, the attack on a Jew because he is Jewish is covered from every available angle, dominating the news stream for a whole week. It is the subject of reports, debates, man on the street commentaries, flashbacks and projections, solemn statements by the authorities relayed by journalists that 15 years ago would have hidden it under the media rug. The three major dailies simultaneously ran articles on why Jews wear the kippa—a mix of misleading and informative but nothing nasty. There were some kippa friendly hashtags and high profile kippa wearers: The pro-Israel deputy, Claude Goasguen, wore a kippa to the National Assembly and a Muslim specialist on radical Islam, Mohamed Sifaoui, wore one on Facebook. But Goasguen said he’d make a gesture if a Muslim woman in hijab were attacked and Sifaoui said we must be exceedingly careful not to stigmatize Muslims. This brings us back to square one, as we will see below.

Local, national, and international media jumped on the suggestion by Zvi Ammar, president of the Marseille Consistoire, that Jewish men should perhaps refrain from wearing the telltale kippa until the situation improves. Might as well say until the “meschia” arrives! Chief Rabbi Haim Korsia and CRIF President Roger Cukierman, among others, said we should continue to wear the kippa with pride and courage. The yes-no dilemma got batted around as if it hadn’t been twisting our minds for fifteen years already. Wear the magen david or the chai openly, hide it, leave it at home; carry a plastic bag from a kosher delicatessen or bookstore, or camouflage it in a brown paper bag; read a book in Hebrew on the metro, read a book in French about the Mideast Conflict… Who can argue with any individual decision on these issues? When we’ve finished divesting ourselves of all this paraphernalia, how will we hide our Jewish eyes?

The novelty is the absence of pity for Yusuf’s callow youth and dull bladed machete. He is in preventive detention, charged with attempted murder aggravated by antisemitism and associated with terrorist intentions. This is a giant step forward. The judges were obviously not influenced by the “slightly wounded” twist.

In the wake of the November 13 jihad attacks, President Hollande promised a broad slate of measures including a constitutional revision that will, if enacted, reinforce powers of investigation and repression currently employed under the state of emergency. One controversial measure is the proposed denaturalization of dual nationals guilty of terrorism, including those born in France. Except for a tiny minority, no one is actually pleading in favor of these traitors. A majority would be in favor of extending the measure to any French citizen who takes arms against his nation, but international law forbids the creation of stateless persons.

The question is elsewhere: will the measure violate the founding principles of a nation where citizenship is determined by jus soli and not parental origin? Will it stigmatize dual nationals? Will it have any practical effect? Commentators on a serious political TV program, C Dans l’air, explained that the measure would be worthless: it would not dissuade terrorists, because they don’t give a damn for their French nationality, and would not disgrace them, because they would already be dead. While this reasoning hummed along, the banner announced that the young Turkish-Kurd had been charged and detained. Wouldn’t he benefit from the measure? If, of course, he has Turkish nationality. He has a long life ahead of him, with multiple options… locked up in a Turkish jail, hunted down as a Turkish Kurd, or living it up in the caliphate.

There is something indecent about raising the red flag against stigmatization of Muslims every time jihad strikes. If Islam is indeed the culprit, the fact is it couldn’t express itself without Muslims. What about the “90% moderate Muslims” concept? Nine times out of ten when a killer steps out of the mass, it turns out everyone thought he was a regular guy. Fellows like Yusuf with a machete for the Jew and a knife for the policeman can pop up anywhere any time. If you come across one that knows how to sharpen the blade, you’re dead. Last week a Tunisian living as an asylum seeker in Germany attacked a Parisian police station with a meat cleaver. Before that, a Muslim rammed his car into soldiers guarding a mosque in Valence. France is reeling from the November 13th massacre, Germany wakes up to mass sexual assaults on New Year’s Eve, Jews are stabbed in Israel, European tourists are murdered in Tunisia, in Istanbul, and everyone knows the next atrocity is around the corner. Muslims, under pressure of the inevitable backlash, will have to find a way to liberate themselves from the genocidal ideology that gives birth to monsters in their midst.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. Nidra Poller’s latest book, The Black Flag of Jihad stalks la Républic, is now available on on Kindle and paperback hereIf you have enjoyed this article and want to read more by Nidra Poller, please click here. Nidra Poller also contributes to our community blog, The Iconoclast. To see all her blog posts, please click here and here.

Rand Paul ‘Baffled’ by Evangelicals’ Preference for ‘War-Mongering GOP Candidates’

FAYETTEVILLE, NC /PRNewswire/ — In an exclusive interview with FTMDaily’s Jerry Robinson, U.S. Senator and Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul discusses the recent Senate vote on his “Audit the Fed” bill, as well as the lack of support of his candidacy within the American evangelical community.

Sen. Paul explains that the message in the New Testament is one of peace and that Jesus never encouraged his followers to rebel against the government or to instigate war. Therefore, Sen. Paul’s message of peace through prosperity should resonate within evangelical groups during this presidential election cycle. But when asked why many evangelicals in America prefer militarism over peace, Sen. Paul is truly baffled.

Sen. Paul comments:

“I think it is really an irony, and I continue to be baffled by it, but it’s not always true. I do remind them [religious and evangelical groups] that the sermon on the mount and the beatitudes were ‘blessed are the peacemakers’. Jesus didn’t say, ‘Oh, let’s gather some rebels and overturn the government that’s collaborating with the Romans’. Really, his message was a much different one.”

Jerry Robinson, a Christian economist and host of Follow the Money radio, recognizes that Sen. Paul’s message of a humble foreign policy, sound money, and fiscal transparency within government is in step with the teachings of the New Testament. And although Sen. Paul’s Audit the Fed bill was narrowly defeated by Senate Democrats on Tuesday, he promises that the fight for an audit is not over.

Sen. Paul concedes that he has worked for five years to get the bill up for a vote in the Senate, but that despite Tuesday’s defeat, he will continue to push his agenda.

Ultimately, Sen. Paul explains that his desire is to not only see a thorough audit of the Federal Reserve’s massive and opaque balance sheet, but also to allow interest rates to be set by the marketplace rather than the Federal Reserve. He claims that had interest rates been allowed to rise prior to the housing bubble of 2008, investors would have heeded the market signal that they had over-built and the bubble could have been avoided altogether.

About FTMDaily

FTMDaily, or Follow the Money Daily, is an online media company delivering cutting-edge financial commentaries, unique economic strategies, and informed geopolitical analysis. FTMDaily.com was created in 2010 by Christian economist and best-selling author, Jerry Robinson. Since then, FTMDaily.com has grown exponentially with readers and subscribers from all around the world.

Our mission at Follow the Money Daily is simple. We exist to help people understand the global economic and geopolitical realities that face them. For our paid subscribers, we provide real-time, actionable investing ideas and income strategies, along with cutting-edge geopolitical analysis, designed to prepare them for the difficult challenges that lie ahead for America and the world.

RELATED ARTICLE: Why the Freedom Caucus Wants to Declare War on ISIS

Canadian PM Trudeau: We won’t bomb the Islamic State even if attacked

“Canadian PM: We won’t bomb ISIS even if attacked,” by Raphael Poch, Israel National News, January 5, 2016:

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is keeping his post-election promises and planning to put an end to the participation of the Canadian Air Force in the allied bombings of ISIS. Instead, he is moving Canadian efforts towards training local forces and towards providing humanitarian aid in Syria and Iraq.

In an interview with Global News, Trudeau said that he sees no reason to change this new policy towards ISIS and the threat of Islamic terror, even if a terror attack similar to the one in Paris were carried out on Canadian soil.

Trudeau, who as Prime Minister receives daily briefings on matters of national security, said that “it is no surprise that there are angry extremists and terrorists out there who wish Canadians and Canada harm and countries like it around the world. The key on understanding that, is how we let that affect us.”

“Obviously one of the most fundamental responsibilities of any government is to keep its citizens safe, and that is something that we are very focused on. But more than that, do we let ourselves be ruled by fear? Do we give in to the fear that there is a terrorist on every plane that may come to Canada? No, we cannot live that way and continue to be the hopeful country that we are. Quite frankly, fear doesn’t make us stronger; it makes us weaker. I feel that the job of being Prime Minister is to demonstrate that there are concerns, But we are working very hard on them, and people shouldn’t go through their lives afraid.”…

“We need to ensure that our intelligence community and our police services have the tools necessary to locate threats to Canadians. But anytime you are giving more resources to the intelligence agencies and the police, you need to bring in more oversight on those agencies to make sure that those powers are being properly used and not damaging our free society, and to make sure that they are doing everything they can to me Canadians safe.”

Trudeau said that “Canada is committed to having a military engagement in the fight against ISIL (ISIS) but in a helpful and substantive way. We have made the decision that we will pull out the CF-18’s and ending the bombings that Canada has been involved in, and we will be doing something else.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Justin Trudeau’s mosques visits

Toronto Imam: Muslims should hire only Muslims; do business only with Muslims

Vatican spokesman: Islam teaches “non-violence in the name of God”

London Mayor: Worried about Islamic jihad terror? Remember the Alhambra

VIDEO: Terrorist Attack in Dubai?

New Year’s revelers were sent running for their lives after a fire engulfed a five-star hotel just 500 yards from where Dubai’s spectacular fireworks display was due to begin.

The Address Downtown caught fire at about 9.30 p.m. Dubai time, with the flames appearing to reach from the ground floor up another 40-or-so stories of the 63 floor building.

Those who escaped described how people climbed over each other in their rush to escape the burning building.

One Briton was forced to carry his disabled mother on his back.

Read more.

U.S. Navy: Chattanooga Slaughter Inspired by Foreign Muslim Terrorists

Another setback for the Obama Ministry of Islamophilia, which recently was stunned by the Army ignoring the recommendations of its investigating officer and deciding that Bowe Bergdahl will face a general court martial for desertion and “misbehavior before the enemy”.

The deserter Bergdahl, you will recall, was declared by the Obama administration to have “served the United States with honor and distinction.” But there was something greater at play in the Bergdhal case, something great enough to inspire President Obama to hold a special ceremony in the Rose Garden. Mark Steyn asks some hard questions about one of the strangest, darkest episodes of the Obama presidency:

The deserter may get his just deserts, but what of the man who made the “deal” for him and then honored the deserter with a Rose Garden photo-op with his Taliban-supporting dad… The President of the United States embracing a Taliban sympathizer at the White House. There was no need to hold such an intimate photo-op. Yet Obama chose to do it. Why?

Given what the United States Government knew about Bergdahl at the time of that ceremony, ignorance of who he was is not a plausible explanation. So my question a year and a half ago remains unanswered: why did he do it? […]

There are three dishonorable men in that short photo-op: a deserter who broke his oath, a father who sympathizes publicly with the enemy …and a president lying before the nation, to make them complicit in that dishonor…

The Army at least has decided it will not be made complicit in that dishonor. If there were a real press in this country, someone would ask Obama how it is that he became the first president to host a Rose Garden celebration for a deserter.

Now the Navy also seems to be waking up after seven years of Obamasleep. This is an especially stunning reversal, as just a month ago, FBI Director James Comey had indicated details on the Chattanooga investigation might never be kept secret, stating,  “We don’t want to smear people.”

As Robert Spencer wrote on November 15, 2015:

Abdulazeez’s motivations aren’t really in doubt. He viewed material by jihad leader Anwar Awlaki online, and spoke about Islamic martyrdom. He wrote in his diary about “becoming a martyr.” He texted a hadith to a friend before he began his attack. Abulazeez’s motive is only unclear to the terminally blinkered and willfully ignorant.

And Comey does know more than he is telling: “Sometimes the way we investigate requires us to keep information secret.” Fair enough, but then he adds this curious statement: “That’s a good thing. We don’t want to smear people.” How could he possibly smear anyone by releasing information about Abdulazeez’s motivations? Is there a jihadi mastermind behind this attack, still loose in Chattanooga? Or does Comey mean that he doesn’t want to talk about Abdulazeez’s motivations because to do so would smear Islam, i.e., cast it in a bad light?

Now the Navy is awarding five Purple Hearts, and the Chattanooga jihad murders are admitted to be, in Comey’s most recent statement, “inspired and motivated by foreign terrorist propaganda.”

Signs of hope? Perhaps, but dhimmitude is always just one jizya payment — or Rose Garden photo op — away.

“Navy Concludes Chattanooga Shooting Was Inspired by Foreign Terrorists,” Breitbart News, December 16, 2015:

Chattanooga Jihad Killer Muhammad Abdulazeez, with his devout, and now shocked, shocked!, family.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — After determining a shooting at a Chattanooga reserve center this summer was inspired by foreign terrorists, the Navy will award the Purple Heart to the four Marines and one sailor who were killed and the one Marine who was injured there.

U.S. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus announced the decision Wednesday in a news release. He said the finding that the shooting was terrorist-inspired came after an extensive investigation by the FBI and Naval Criminal Investigation Service.

“This determination allows the Department of the Navy to move forward immediately with the award of the Purple Heart to the families of the five heroes who were victims of this terrorist attack, as well as to the surviving hero, Sgt. Cheeley,” Mabus’ statement reads.

The FBI earlier labeled shooter Muhammad Abdulazeez, a naturalized U.S. citizen, a homegrown violent extremist but declined to say what might have motivated him. His family said he had problems with drugs and depression that prevented him from holding on to a job. He was also in debt, and considering bankruptcy at 24.

But investigators also found writings from Abdulazeez that reference Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S.-born cleric who encouraged and inspired attacks on the homeland and was killed in a U.S. drone strike in 2011.

Earlier Wednesday, FBI Director James Comey told reporters the July 16 attack was “inspired and motivated by foreign terrorist propaganda.”

That statement came after some had questioned why the Dec. 2 attack that killed 14 in San Bernardino, California, was quickly labeled terrorism but months passed without a determination in the Chattanooga attack.

Abdulazeez first fired shots from his car into a military recruiting center in a Chattanooga strip mall before driving about 7 miles to a Navy-Marine reserve center where he killed four Marines and a sailor and wounded a fifth Marine before Chattanooga police killed him.

Those killed were Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Randall Smith, and Marines Staff Sgt. David Wyatt, Sgt. Carson Holmquist, Gunnery Sgt. Thomas Sullivan and Lance Cpt. Squire “Skip” Wells. Sgt. DeMonte Cheeley was injured.

U.S. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), who is from Chattanooga, praised the decision in a statement, saying those killed and wounded “exemplify the very best that America has to offer.”

“Our commander-in-chief has classified the heartbreaking events that took place that day as an act of terror, and I have been pressing the FBI to provide answers to both the families of the fallen and our community,” said the Tennessee Republican. “I appreciate the efforts of all involved as they work tirelessly to piece together this puzzle so we can better protect ourselves in the future.”

Smith’s grandmother, Linda Wallace, said in a telephone interview that she was frustrated it took months to determine the shooting was inspired by foreign terrorists. But she was pleased to hear of the award.

“He definitely deserved it,” she said. “He gave his life for those other guys.”

RELATED ARTICLE: SB jihadi’s mid-massacre message released: “We pledge allegiance to Khalifa”

U.S. Military was Prepared to Immediately Protect U.S. Diplomats in Benghazi

Contrary to what the Obama administration has told the American people, the U.S. military was poised and ready to respond immediately and forcefully against terrorists in Benghazi, Libya.

That’s what we have learned from an email exchange from then-Department of Defense Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash to State Department leadership immediately offering “forces that could move to Benghazi” during the terrorist attack on the U.S. Special Mission Compound in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. In an email sent to top Department of State officials, at 7:19 p.m. ET, only hours after the attack had begun, Bash says, “we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.” The Obama administration redacted the details of the military forces available, oddly citing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption that allows the withholding of “deliberative process” information.

Bash’s email seems to directly contradict testimony given by then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2013. Defending the Obama administration’s lack of military response to the nearly six-hour-long attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Panetta claimed that “time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response.”

This latest bombshell your Judicial Watch has released to the public has attracted considerable media attention. Here is how the Washington Examiner reported on these revelations:

While parts of the email were redacted, the message indicates the Pentagon was waiting for approval from the State Department to send the forces in. That help never arrived for the Americans under siege at the Benghazi compound. A spokesman for the House Select Committee on Benghazi said investigators had received the unredacted version of the email, which was obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act and made public Tuesday, last year but had declined to make it public.

Now would be a good time to go back and review the Obama administration’s many prevarications on the Benghazi terrorist attacks. (A significant collection of our history-making work on the Benghazi scandal is available here.)

You may recall that the first assault occurred at the main compound at about 9:40 p.m. local time (3:40 p.m. ET in Washington, DC). The second attack on a CIA annex 1.2 miles away began three hours later, at about 12 a.m. local time the following morning (6 p.m. ET), and ended at approximately 5:15 a.m. local time (11:15 a.m. ET) with a mortar attack that killed security officers Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

The newly released email reads:

From: Bash, Jeremy CIV SD [REDACTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 7:19 PM
To: Sullivan, Jacob J; Sherman, Wendy R; Nides, Thomas R
Cc: Miller, James HON OSD POLICY; Wienefeld, James A ADM JSC VCJCS; Kelly, John LtGen SD; martin, dempsey [REDACTED]

Subject: Libya

State colleagues:

I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton].

After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak. They include a [REDACTED].

Assuming Principals agree to deploy these elements, we will ask State to procure the approval from host nation. Please advise how you wish to convey that approval to us [REDACTED].

Jeremy

Jacob Sullivan was Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the time of the terrorist attack at Benghazi. Wendy Sherman was Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, the fourth-ranking official in the U.S. Department of State. Thomas Nides was the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.

The timing of the Bash email is particularly significant based upon testimony given to members of Congress by Gregory Hicks, Deputy Chief of Mission of the U.S. embassy in Tripoli at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attack. According to Hicks’ 2013 testimony, a show of force by the U.S. military during the siege could have prevented much of the carnage. Said Hicks, “If we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them.”

Ultimately, Special Operations forces on their own initiative traveled from Tripoli to Benghazi to provide support during the attack. Other military assets were only used to recover the dead and wounded, and to evacuate U.S. personnel from Libya. In fact, other documents released in October by Judicial Watch show that only one U.S. plane was available to evacuate Americans from Benghazi to Tripoli and that raises questions about whether a delay of military support led to additional deaths in Benghazi.

As per usual, we only obtained this document after going to federal court. The new email came as a result of a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on September 4, 2014 seeking:

  • Records related to notes, updates, or reports created in response to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. This request includes, but is not limited to, notes taken by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or employees of the Office of the Secretary of State during the attack and its immediate aftermath.

The Obama administration and Clinton officials hid this compelling Benghazi email for years. The email makes readily apparent that the military was prepared to launch immediate assistance that could have made a difference, at least at the CIA Annex. The fact that the Obama Administration withheld this email for so long only worsens the scandal of Benghazi.

The Washington Examiner puts it very well:

The newly disclosed email chain casts doubt on previous testimony from high-level officials, several of whom suggested there was never any kind of military unit that could have been in a position to mount a rescue mission during the hours-long attack on Benghazi.

It came out later that day that the House Select Committee on Benghazi had been withholding from the public an unredacted version of the email released by Judicial Watch. Almost immediately upon Judicial Watch’s release of the devastating email, a spokesman for the House Select Committee on Benghazi made a snide, sour-grapes announcement to The Daily Caller attempting to defend the Committee’s decision to keep the email secret for a year by implicitly criticizing Judicial Watch’s supposed “rush to release or comment on every document it uncovers.” Bad enough fighting the lawless secrecy of the Obama administration – so it is disappointing to have the unnecessary spitballs from presumed allies for transparency.

The Democrats on the Select Committee thought they helped their cause of defending the indefensible by releasing a complete version of the email. Hardly. The new details show that the military forces that weren’t deployed, specifically “a SOF [Special Operations Forces] element that was in Croatia (which can fly to Suda Bay, Crete), and a Marine FAST [Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team] team out of Rota, Spain.” The FAST Team arrived well after the attack and the Special Operations Forces never left Croatia. In addition to providing confirming details that forces were ready to go, the Democrats expose the Obama administration’s dishonesty in withholding the information in the first place.

All this goes to underscore the value of Judicial Watch’s independent watchdog activities and our leadership in forcing truth and accountability over the Benghazi scandal.

Judicial Watch Takes Deadly San Francisco Sanctuary Policy to Court

Judicial Watch recognizes that local cities’ and states’ “sanctuary policies” for illegal alien criminals are deadly and unlawful – so much so that we’re willing to go to court to try to stop them.

You will be pleased to know that JW just filed a taxpayer lawsuit in San Francisco County, California Superior Court to end a March 2015 expansion of San Francisco’s sanctuary ordinance that prohibits San Francisco Sheriff’s Department personnel from exchanging information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) about the citizenship or immigration status of inmates in the Sheriff Department’s custody. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of San Francisco taxpayer Cynthia Cerletti (Cynthia Cerletti v. Ross Mirkarimi (No. CGC -15-54250)). We’re pleased to be working with Robert Patrick Sticht, a Los Angeles-based attorney, who is serving as lead counsel in the Cerletti litigation.

On March 13, 2015, current San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi put in place a new policy directive, entitled “Immigration & Customs Enforcement Procedures (ICE) Contact and Communications,” mandating that “absent a court issued warrant, a signed court order, or other legal requirement authorizing ICE access . . . SFSD staff shall not provide the following information or access to ICE representatives: Citizenship/immigration status of any inmate.”

Mirkarimi’s new policy directive, which goes even further than San Francisco’s infamous sanctuary ordinance, runs directly contrary to federal law, which states, “[A] Federal, State, or local government entity or officials may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from [ICE] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” (8 U.S.C. § 1373).

The San Francisco Sheriff’s Department receives over $200 million in taxpayer support annually to fund its operations, a portion of which is being spent to carry out the new policy directive and train personnel on its requirements. As California grants its taxpayers the right to sue government officials to prevent expenditures of taxpayer funds on unlawful activities, Judicial Watch filed suit against Mirkarimi, in his official capacity, on behalf of Cerletti. The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department from expending any taxpayer funds on the policy directive and a judgment declaring the policy directive to be illegal.

Sheriff-Elect Vicki Hennessy, who defeated Mirkarimi in a November 3, 2015 election, has promised changes to Mirkarimi’s policy directive. Judicial Watch’s lawsuit seeks to ensure that Hennessy makes good on her promise when she takes office.

San Francisco’s sanctuary ordinance gained national attention on July 1, 2015, when Kathryn Steinle was gunned down at one the of city’s most popular tourist spots, allegedly by Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal alien who had been released from the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department despite a request from ICE that he be detained for possible deportation. The Sheriff’s Department not only ignored ICE’s detainer request, but also failed to notify ICE when it released Lopez-Sanchez on April 15, 2015, little more than a month after Mirkarimi issued the new policy directive.

Sheriff Mirkarimi’s expansion of San Francisco’s sanctuary policy is dangerous and violates federal law. It needs to end. Our new lawsuit should encourage Sheriff-Elect Hennessy to repeal Sheriff Mirkarimi’s policy directive in its entirety – thereby protecting public safety, and surely saving innocent lives.

As the result of earlier Judicial Watch litigation, the San Francisco Police Department was required in 2011 to comply with a California law requiring federal officials be notified whenever an alien is arrested on certain drug offenses. Our team is separately investigating whether the release of Steinle’s alleged killer violated this court order, so stand by for further developments.

JW Sues for Details on Massive Hillary Clinton Russian Uranium Scandal

The Clintons have a demonstrated record of selling their public office, often to foreign interests and governments who would harm our nation’s security. They did it with the Chinese during Bill Clinton’s administration and now they seem to have done it repeatedly during the Obama administration. That’s why we filed a new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit to gain access to documents involving a uranium deal approved by then-Secretary of State Clinton that is tied to major Clinton Foundation donor Frank Giustra and Russian-state issues. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of the Treasury (No. 1:15-cv-01776)).

We filed the lawsuit after the Treasury Department of the “most transparent administration in history” ignored a FOIA request sent on May 29, 2015. Judicial Watch’s request seeks emails between key Treasury agencies and Hillary Clinton non-governmental email accounts:

Our investigative focus is on a controversial 2010 deal involving Uranium One, the Canadian company currently at the center of the Clinton Foundation donor scandals and ARMZ, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rosatom, the Russian atomic energy agency, which recently took a 51 percent controlling interest in Uranium One. The lawsuit seeks information about the approval of this deal and whether the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) ignored the mandatory 75-day review approval process, approving the deal in just 52 days. Mrs. Clinton, as Secretary of State, was a member of CFIUS.

Peter Scheweizer’s book Clinton Cash first raised questions about the Uranium One deal, which benefited many donors to the Clinton Foundation. One of these donors was Frank Giustra, who, among other dealings, helped set up a Clinton Foundation entity in Canada that had the effect of hiding donations from foreign governments and others from public disclosure, despite promises of disclosure by Hillary Clinton and the Foundation.

As the New York Times reported on April 23, the Clinton Foundation hid many of the beneficiaries of the deal approved by Mrs. Clinton and CFIUS:

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.

The documents we are trying to force from Treasury should shed light on the apparent conflict of interest between then-Secretary of State Clinton and the Clinton Foundation regarding the expedited approval process. Under United States law, uranium is a strategic asset; therefore, a committee of U.S. government officials must approve any such deal. The CFIUS board, which reviews all foreign acquisitions of American national security assets, consists of seven cabinet members, including the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Treasury.

In 2010, Jose W. Fernandez represented the State Department on the CFIUS board, and the documents sought by Judicial Watch lawsuit could clarify whether Clinton failed to disclose to Fernandez that several executives at Uranium One made millions of dollars in contributions to the Clinton Foundation immediately before and after CFIUS reviewed and approved the ARMZ-Uranium One deal.

This latest conflict of interest is part of a wider investigation into the Clinton cash machine and the related corruption of the Obama administration.

Separate Judicial Watch FOIA litigation forced the disclosure last year of documents that provided a road map for over 200 conflicts-of-interest rulings that led to $48 million for the Clinton Foundation and other Clinton-connected entities during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. Previously disclosed documents in this lawsuit, for example, raise questions about funds Clinton accepted from entities linked to Saudi Arabia, China and Iran, among others. The August 13, 2014, investigative report that first disclosed the Clinton financial dealings, “State Department approved 215 Bill Clinton speeches, controversial consulting deal, worth $48m; Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Staff copied on all decisions,” is available here.

The approval of the uranium deal seemingly resulted in millions of dollars for the Clinton Foundation, gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production in the U.S., and made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers.

Hillary Clinton’s cash and secrecy on this Russian uranium deal looks corrupt and criminal. And now that his Treasury Department violated FOIA to cover-up yet another Clinton scandal, there is no daylight between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on this scandal that placed our nation’s security at risk.

RELATED ARTICLES:

U.S. Military was Prepared to Immediately Protect U.S. Diplomats in Benghazi, Email Records Show

Judicial Watch Takes Deadly San Francisco Sanctuary Policy to Court

JW Sues for Details on Massive Hillary Clinton Russian Uranium Scandal