Nowadays Bishop Flavien-Michel Malké’s feckless successors among the U.S. Catholic bishops bow and scrape before the children and heirs of those who killed him, silencing those who speak out about the Muslim persecution of Christians and consigning today’s new martyrs to their fate, sacrificing them on the altar of their fruitless, delusional and self-defeating quest for “dialogue” with Muslims.
How many Christians has that “dialogue” prevented from being persecuted or martyred? Why, absolutely none, of course. But the comfortable suburban Church continues on its comfortable suburban way, secure in its illusions and delusions.
One day, however, the truth it has so assiduously endeavored to ignore, deny and suppress will dawn upon it with undeniable and terrifying reality, and maybe some of those bishops will realize how ill they served their people by enforcing and reinforcing their ignorance and complacency.
“Syriac Bishop Will Be Beatified on the 100th Anniversary of His Martyrdom (832),” National Catholic Register, August 11, 2015:
DIYARBAKIR, Turkey — On Saturday, Pope Francis approved a decree recognizing the martyrdom of Flavien-Michel Malké, a Syriac Catholic bishop who was killed in 1915, amid the Ottoman Empire’s genocide against its Christian minorities.
The decision was made during an Aug. 8 meeting between Pope Francis and Cardinal Angelo Amato, prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints.
Bishop Malké will be beatified Aug. 29, the 100th anniversary of his martyrdom, during a liturgy celebrated by Ignatius Youssef III Younan, the Syriac patriarch of Antioch, at the convent of Our Lady of Deliverance in Lebanon. It is expected that thousands of Syrians and Iraqis displaced by the Islamic State will attend the beatification.
“In these painful times experienced by Christians, especially the Syriac communities in Iraq and Syria, the news of the beatification of one of their martyrs, will surely bring encouragement and consolation to face today’s trials of appalling dimension,” read an Aug. 9 statement of the Syriac Patriarchate of Antioch.
“Blessed Martyr Michael, intercede for us, and protect especially the Christians in the Orient and all the world in these hard and painful days.”
Malké was born in 1858 in the village of Kalaat Mara, a village of the Ottoman Empire in what is now Turkey, to a Syriac Orthodox family. He joined a monastery of that Church and was ordained a deacon, but then converted to the Syriac Catholic Church. (Both the Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholics use the West-Syrian rite.)
After his conversion, he was ordained a priest in Aleppo in 1883. He was a member of the Fraternity of St. Ephrem and served parishes in southeastern Turkey, near his home.
Ottoman persecution of Christians began in earnest with the Hamidian massacres of 1894-1897. Malké’s church and home were sacked and burned in 1895, and many of his parishioners were murdered, including his mother. In total, the massacres killed between 80,000 and 300,000 Christians.
He was selected to become a bishop in the 1890s, serving as a chorbishop and helping in the rebuilding of Christian villages. In 1913, he was consecrated bishop and appointed head of the Syriac Diocese of Gazireh (modern-day Cizre, 150 miles southeast of Diyarbakir).
A second round of persecution of Christians in the Ottoman Empire began in April 1915. Known as the Armenian Genocide, it targeted the Armenian, Assyrian and Greek Christian minorities in the empire. The Assyrian genocide (the portion of the mass killings directed against Syriac and Chaldean Christians) is also known as the Seyfo Massacre, from the Syriac word for sword.
Some 1.5 million Christians were killed, and millions more were displaced during the genocide.
During the summer when the genocide broke out, Bishop Malké was in the Idil district, near Gazireh. In June 1915, hearing the Ottoman forces were preparing to massacre Gazireh’s people, he returned.
According to the Syriac Patriarchate, when his friends and acquaintances urged him to withdraw from Gazireh to a safer location, he replied, “Even my blood I will shed for my sheep.”
Together with four of his priests and the Chaldean bishop of Gazireh, Philippe-Jacques Abraham, he was arrested and imprisoned for two months.
Bishop Malké refused to convert to Islam, and on Aug. 29, 1915, he was martyred.
He was the last Syriac bishop of Gazireh; after his death, the diocese was suppressed, and, today, the Syriac Catholic Church has no presence in Turkey.
In an Aug. 8 interview with Vatican Radio, the postulator of Bishop Malké’s cause, Father Rami Al Kabalan, spoke of the bishop’s deep spiritual life as well as the relevance his martyrdom has today.
The bishop, he said, “played a fundamental role in encouraging people to defend their faith in the difficulties of the time, during the persecutions of the Ottoman Empire.”
Bishop Malké lived a life of poverty, even selling his liturgical vestments in order to assist the poor and help fight poverty, Father Al Kabalan said.
In addition to his closeness with the poor, the priest said that Bishop Malké was extremely zealous in his apostolate and visited all of the parishes within his diocese.
One of the bishop’s most striking phrases, his postulator said, comes from when he was pressured to renounce the faith and to convert to Islam. Rather than giving in, the bishop replied, “I will defend my faith to the blood.”…
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Bishop-Flavien-Michel-Malké-e1439632725340.png395640Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2015-08-15 06:01:142015-08-15 06:02:10Bishop Slaughtered for Refusing to Convert to Islam to be Beatified
Ah ha ha, I’m chortling. Or maybe it’s better to imagine airy bell-like laughter, something silky and lacy. Ah ha ha, I’m laughing. The Big Bad Wolf said I’ll huff and I’ll puff and I’ll… give an interview to a journalist. That was Gaza Beach today, a silly little flop. More journalists than BDSniks in their green Boycott Israel t-shirts. More riot policemen than petulant self-satisfied protestors in keffieh. The caliphators were not out in force.
Journalists cooling their heels at Gaza Beach.
But let’s begin at the beginning. Shortly before noon a parade of police cars passed by, sirens singing. That always electrifies the atmosphere. The cars took up positions around the Hôtel de Ville [city hall]. Dozens of CRS [riot police] were already in place, manning their stations. A long line of people waited patiently on the high road to go through the checkpoint and down the ramp to Tel Aviv on the Seine. Silent hecklers waited off to the side, making a fashion statement with their keffiehs and Gaza Beach Soccer t-shirts as if their presence were the eloquent expression of “international opinion.” Euro-Palestine in person [http://www.europalestine.com/] had informed loyal followers that permission to demonstrate had been granted on the grounds that they not try to mingle with the Tel Aviv beachgoers. So of course that’s why a dozen of them had to stand there like “do me something.”
A generous supply of press badges were waiting on a table. We signed up, got our badges, and took the fast track through baggage control. Then a short stretch under the bridge, with dozens of CRS lined up in the shadows next to the WCs, and here we are at the much maligned Tel Aviv on the Seine. We walk a bit further and come to the patch of sandy beach. Israeli music rings out, people are dancing, hips are gyrating, hands are clapping, the crowd is already dense. TV trucks look down from the bridge, cameramen are all over the place, microphones with logos are looking for something to record. One food truck (more about that later), an ice cream stand, and that’s it. A pittance.
Dancing at Tel Aviv on the Seine.
As if the whole thing had been nothing more than a stupid conversation! I may get more information in the coming days: was this the original plan, or was it scaled down in the face of fierce opposition (see Part 1)? Wasn’t there something about beach games and what not? I can’t even remember the details of what I’d read yesterday. Perhaps further on? We walked through a sort of covered passage. I spotted a keffieh-umbrella, some Palestinian flags. “I thought they weren’t supposed to mingle?” In fact, we were on Gaza Beach! Without warning. No signs to indicate we were entering the territory occupied by the “Palestinian” contingent. A handful of activists were activating. Stringing up their huge banner. Always that same self-satisfied look. Journalists standing around waiting for something to happen. We got into a conversation with a Mediterranean looking young woman brandishing a Radio France Internationale mike. Remarked that we had entered the sector by mistake. There was no checkpoint but now we discover we can’t go back to Tel Aviv, we have to go up the stairs to the upper quai, make a long detour, and pass through the checkpoint again. “You know why? It’s because there’s no fear of an incursion from the Tel Aviv side. But the same is not true of this side.” The fresh young raven-haired RFI journalist does not agree. “There’s just as much chance of an attack from that side as this side,” she says with a certainty that can only come from repeating what you are told and never thinking for yourself.
Gaza Beach right next to Tel Aviv.
The police can’t play around with that kind of nonsense. They protect from clear and present dangers. The bridge and the high road overlooking Gaza beach are open to the public. Bridges and the high road above the Zionist side were blocked… taking no chances on a wannabe Al Aqsa from which rocks might be cast down upon the festive crowd.
The weather has changed. After days and weeks of glorious sunshine that made Paris blossom like a woman in love, the sky was heavy today with thick white clouds. All the magic of Paris Plages had disappeared. I couldn’t believe I had found it so charming. Nothing but a dreary road along the river, with a few tables and chairs squeezed against damp dark stone walls. And that sort-of-a- beach where young and not so young were dancing and putting some heart into it.
The food truck? The one and only food truck where the hungry lined up forever? What was the connection between Tel Aviv and the three young women with ashram accessories running “Epices & love” [peace & love, y’get it?]. The vegan craze? We sit on a narrow wooden bench chomping on a tasteless wrap filled with tasteless vegetables, that and nothing more. D. tells me what he saw in a kindergarten when he went into Gaza at the end of the ’67 war: nothing on the walls but big drawings of the different ways of killing Jews.
When we left the Seine at about 3 PM there was still a long line of people waiting to cross the checkpoint into Tel Aviv beach. E. and I decided to walk down toward Châtelet and check out Gaza on the Seine. As before, we had to cross to the far side of the street as we passed the Zionist stretch where the music was still going strong. Finally we could cross over and look straight down at the handful of BDSsers clustered around a haranguer telling them when the pharmacist offers a generic drug be sure to say no to TEVA. Hip hip hurrah, they holler, we don’t want TEVA. Then, if I’m not mistaken, it’s the leader of Euro-Palestine CAPJPO herself, Olivia Zemour who takes the mike. We voted for this Socialist mayor, she says, and now look what she’s done. She honors the apartheid State of Israel that massacres the people of Gaza! These politicians, after they get into office, they do whatever they please. Right or Left, it’s the same.
Did you hear that, monsieur Left? You curry their vote, bend over backward and worse, authorize their protests, twist the news to suit their views, and just when you think everybody is happy, you forget one day to absolutely totally and completely vilify Israel, and you’ve lost their vote.
Ah, but it doesn’t matter says O. Zemour, because our movement is constantly gaining ground [as testified by the half a dozen people drinking in her words] and Israel is more and more isolated… To listen to her, you’d think it was half way wiped off the map already.
A different kind of poster on the Tel Aviv side.
I walked down rue des Rosiers to get a breath of fresh air after all that pathetic spectacle. We don’t need the city hall to give us a stingy smidgeon of Tel Aviv. This is the real thing. People lined up at the falafel joints for some real food! Sweet wholesome perfume of fresh baked cakes and bread. An extra contingent of soldiers and police… in case, I suppose, an overflow from Gaza Beach might come storming in. But it wasn’t that crowd today. The caliphators are on vacation in their homelands, or weren’t mobilized for this event.
Prime time news on i24 this evening: French people on the real beach in the real Tel Aviv danced in front of the French embassy to show their solidarity with us over here. The rain started falling on Paris Plages at about 6 PM but nothing like the huge thunderstorm with hail and lightening that had been forecast. Another non sequitur.
It was all rather pitiful. The Mayor and her assistant holding out against vicious pressure while giving into it at the same time. The festive event falling short of reasonable expectations. Riot police, the gendarmerie, undercover agents, and domestic intelligence mobilized for a handful of agitators with big banners. Not enough troublemakers to spoil the party, not enough party to lift the spirits. No falafel, no sunshine.
And yet this whole affair was like a stumbling block that tripped up the long standing notion of the acceptable Israeli who has traded the blue & white Magen David flag for the universal rainbow of LGBT, decries the democratically elected government, detests the religious, the “colonists,” and the army, pleads guilty when accused, cries “peace” when pinched, and parties until dawn.
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of Checkpoint at the entrance to Tel Aviv sur Seine.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Checkpoint-at-the-entrance-to-Tel-Aviv-sur-Seine-e1439542166989.jpg426640Nidra Pollerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngNidra Poller2015-08-14 04:50:422015-08-14 04:50:42Tel Aviv on the Seine Flushes Out the Slithery Creatures — Part 2
I told you the other day, I’m a one issue voter. If we don’t get immigration (how many and who we allow to become permanent residents) slowed (stopped!) nothing else matters.
So, just thought you should see what Daniel Horowitz writing at Conservative Reviewyesterday tells us about Carly Fiorina on the issue of immigration (among many other issues). Here is the immigration portion, but please go read the rest of his good analysis.
By the way, it sure looks and sounds like Fox News is doing a Carly coronation these days! I’m thinking that Rupert Murdoch would love to see a Rubio/Fiorina ticket because they could be controlled and move his open-borders agenda forward!
In 2010, while running for Senate in California against Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, Carly affirmed her support for the DREAM Act amnesty, noting “I would support the DREAM Act because I do not believe that we can punish children who through no fault of their own are here trying to live the American dream.” The DREAM Act has served as the foundation for Obama’s cycle of amnesty and Fiorina’s defense is the heart and soul of the arguments Hillary can and will use during the general election. Don’t we need a candidate who will be able to throw what is perhaps our biggest punch with full force?
Carly also opposed fixing the birthright citizenship loophole for illegal aliens and referred to it as an “emotional distraction.” She also accused some opponents of amnesty as taking on a racist tone. Again, that is exactly what Hillary says. How can she throw the immigration punch with such vulnerabilities?
In February 2013, when the Gang of 8 released the worst comprehensive amnesty bill of our time, Carly was one of its biggest cheerleaders on the Sunday shows. Appearing on Meet the Press, she said “I applaud and salute the Gang of Eight`s proposal. Let`s move forward and vote on that.” She appeared on This Week on February 3 praising the bill as a “carefully crafted” balance and a “good first step,” while expressing hope that the Democrats would not oppose it. This bill was the embodiment of what is wrong with the very political class she now inveighs against in her well-honed stump speech. Yet, when people like Cruz and Sessions were fighting to stop this bill, which emboldened Obama to expand his executive amnesty and create a new wave of illegal immigration, Carly was cheering the armpit of the political class. This is unbelievable. Hillary can eat her alive.
On the Gang of Eight bill, just remember it would have greatly expanded the role of the federal refugee resettlement contractorsand consequently they all lobbied heavily for it.
Carly Fiorina happy to support Dream Act and Gang of Eight!
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Carly-Fiorina-4-e1439495524523.jpg347640Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2015-08-13 15:53:102015-08-14 07:06:49Daniel Horowitz: Carly is in no position to punch Hillary on immigration issue!
“However, when State Department spokeswoman Mary Harf appeared on live television and asserted that the best way to defeat the Islamic State was by offering its members better ‘job opportunities,’ the idea that the State Department is run by fools became increasingly plausible.”
“Critic Blasts Obama Narrative on Islam,” by F. Michael Maloof for WND, August 8, 2015:
WASHINGTON – The persecution and slaughter of Christians throughout the Middle East has become a major humanitarian crisis, with Pope Francis warning that the atrocities border on “genocide,” according to a report from Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.
Yet critics say the U.S. State Department just apologizes for the terror and never seems to find a good reason to go to bat for Christians.
One reason, a prominent Middle East expert explains, is that the U.S. State Department, as well as other government offices, “are infiltrated by Islamists and their sympathizers.”
But Raymond Ibrahim, author of “Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians,” told G2 Bulletin in an interview there’s another reason, too.
“I believe the greatest reason is that for whatever reason the Obama government has a ‘narrative’ that it’s trying to sell to the American people, one that maintains that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance – so it’s not in the State Department’s favor to allow persecuted Christians to expose the truth about Islam.”
Ibrahim said the problem isn’t just with the State Department but exists throughout the Obama administration.
“It seems more systemic,” he said. “Again ‘The Narrative’ – that is, the lie – must prevail, and most politicians who often care little for truth and/or reality are willing to go along with the ‘Narrative’ in the hopes that they gain favor from on high, that is, the Obama administration.”
ISIS’ attacks on Christians have been horrific in recent months. They’ve included recordings of mass beheadings, crucifixions and worse. There even have videos of children under the control of ISIS firing guns point-blank into victims.
But in spite of the atrocities against Christians, Ibrahim said, he’s never received any communication from the State Department acknowledging the attacks on Christians.
“No, any criticism of Islam is not welcome by this government,” he told G2. “For example, back in February 2009, I was asked to testify about Islamist and counter strategies before the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee. Although my testimony was posted on the Armed Services website, it was later removed (but can be read on my website).”
At the time, the U.S. House of Representatives was run by Democrats, with Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the House Speaker. The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee at the time was Ike Skelton, D-Mo.
Ibrahim went on to say State won’t even acknowledge that the attacks by the Islamic State on Christians and their churches are part of an overall religious conflict between Christianity and Islam, whose leaders repeatedly have vowed to establish a worldwide caliphate and force everyone to either be Muslim or be punished.
The reason for that, Ibrahim said, is that the State Department “is either composed of fools or it is lying. There are no other alternatives.
“I generally believe that the State Department is merely lying,” he said. “However, when State Department spokeswoman Mary Harf appeared on live television and asserted that the best way to defeat the Islamic State was by offering its members better ‘job opportunities,’ the idea that the State Department is run by fools became increasingly plausible.”
A request to the State Department for comment on Ibrahim’s allegations went unanswered.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/obama-finger--e1439459747803.jpg371640Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2015-08-13 05:56:352015-08-13 06:03:49Obama’s Failed Islamic State Narrative by Raymond Ibrahim
So asks the Daily Caller, and adds: “The Koran forbids allegiance to non-Muslim authority, preventing these congressmen from serving two masters at once. As the Koran dictates Islam is in a perpetual war against all infidels until a sharia-dominant world is established, which master do they then serve in this conflict?”
“With Obama’s Help, Assembling Allah’s Domestic Army Is Now Easier,” by James Zumwult for The Daily Caller, August 7, 2015:
If immigrants to the U.S. seek citizenship but are reluctant to take an oath of allegiance because it requires a commitment to help defend the country, what is the solution?
If the immigrants in question are Muslim and you have a pro-Muslim U.S. president, the solution is simple — just change the oath to accommodate them.
For years, the oath for citizenship included a requirement the declarant agree to “bear arms on behalf of the United States” and “perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States” when required by the law. But the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service (USCIS) now says, “a candidate may be eligible to exclude these two clauses based on religious training and belief or a conscientious objection.”
The quandary for U.S. citizen candidates who are Muslim is this: Just like America’s first two wars as a new nation were against Muslims, so too have its last two been. However, Islamic law — sharia — prohibits Muslims from fighting fellow Muslims. While this prohibition seems somewhat hypocritical in light of extensive Muslim-on-Muslim violence running rampant in the Middle East today, the concern of would-be U.S. citizen Muslims is that a non-Muslim U.S. could require they fight other Muslims.
To accommodate this concern, President Obama now gives Muslim immigrants wishing to become U.S. citizens a free pass: they no longer are required to undertake a responsibility which even he has relinquished — defending our nation against any Islamic threat.
Raymond Ibrahim’s August 6th article “Obama Alters U.S. Oath of Allegiance to Comply with Islamic Law” explains another important aspect of sharia that is at odds with Muslims taking an allegiance oath to America.
While sharia imposes the above prohibition upon Muslims gaining U.S. citizenship, it also prohibits them from giving fidelity to any non-Muslim government. The act of taking such an oath and not really meaning it is permissible in Islam under the concept of “taqqiya” — feigning loyalty to non-Muslims when necessary to do so to gain their confidence.
This was why naturalized U.S. citizen Faisal Shahzad — convicted of attempting the May 2010 Times Square car bombing only to have the fuse to his device, and his hope of killing infidels, fizzle—when asked by the judge about having taken an oath of allegiance to America said he swore it “but I didn’t mean it.”
As authority for taqqiya, Ibrahim cites Prophet Muhammad’s close companion Abu Darda, who said, “Let us grin in the face of some people while our hearts curse them.”
This is why Muslim immigrants refuse to assimilate in a host country. While retaining one’s identity is not a concern in and of itself, it is the Muslim’s purpose in doing so that is. His purpose is to use his increasing numbers to eventually wield enough influence to replace the host nation’s fundamental laws with those of sharia.
Among those who discourage assimilation by Muslim immigrants in order to support what is known as “creeping sharia” within a host nation is Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. In February 2011, he addressed thousands of Turkish immigrants in Germany, challenging them to turn Germany into Turkey by refusing to assimilate.
Years earlier, as mayor of Istanbul, Erdogan boldly proclaimed democracy was but a temporary vehicle on the journey to establish global Islam. He said: “Democracy is merely a train that we ride until we reach our goal. Mosques are our military barracks, minarets are our spears, and domes are our helmets.” The goal of Islamists, like Erdogan, is to use non-assimilation to eventually claim non-Muslim lands as Muslim.
Erdogan made the mistake of revealing his intentions at a time Turkey was still very much secular, resulting in his arrest. However, today, his efforts to take the train of democracy back to the days of the Ottoman Empire are very obvious.
Erdogan is not alone in defending non-assimilation by Muslims. As Ibrahim cites, numerous verses from the Koran support it including:
Koran 3:28: “Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels rather than believers: and whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah—unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions;” and
Koran 58:22: True Muslims do not befriend non-Muslims “even if they be their fathers, sons, brothers, or kin.”
Lest we simply ignore the above sharia mandate in the interests of political correctness, we should reflect upon incidents in which Muslims have chosen the loyalty of religion over that of country — with deadly consequences for U.S. citizens. While there are several, among them are:
– The April 2005 grenade attack by U.S. Army soldier Hasan Akbar, prompted by his concern over U.S. troops killing his fellow Muslims in Iraq. He killed two and wounded 14.
– The November 2009 Fort Hood shooting by Major Nidal Hasan, prompted by his concern he would be deploying to the Middle East. Rather than doing so, he turned his weapon upon his true enemy—fellow U.S. soldiers—killing 13 and wounding more than thirty.
Ibrahim observes of the former incident: “In short, the first loyalty of any ‘American Muslim’ who follows the Koran is to fellow Muslims, regardless of their nationality. It is not to American ‘infidels.’”
Of the latter incident, he adds: “Much of Hasan’s behavior is grounded in the Islamic doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity. According to this essential teaching, Muslims must always be loyal to Islam and fellow Muslims while having enmity for all non-Islamic things and persons.”
It is chilling to reflect on statements by Islamist supporters such as Tarik Shah who, residing in the U.S., sought to assist al-Qaeda establish training camps here. Arrested in 2005, he boasted, “I could be joking and smiling (with non-Muslims) and then cutting their throats in the next second.”
The two observations above by Ibrahim should cause us to ask a question which, due to political correctness, never will: Where do the loyalties of two current Muslim members of Congress lie?
The Koran forbids allegiance to non-Muslim authority, preventing these congressmen from serving two masters at once. As the Koran dictates Islam is in a perpetual war against all infidels until a sharia-dominant world is established, which master do they then serve in this conflict?
Either these two congressmen are true Muslims serving Allah and, therefore, unable to serve America, or, they are true patriots serving the U.S. and, therefore, unable to serve Allah. The latter, incidentally, would make them apostates under sharia — a crime punishable by death….
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/ellison-carson-muslums-in-congress-e1439459325119.png379640Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2015-08-13 05:49:472015-08-13 07:13:57Where do the loyalties of two current Muslim members of Congress lie?
On this special episode of The Glazov Gang, we are joined by Toni Bugle, the founder of M.A.R.I.A.S. (Mothers against Radical Islam and Sharia).
She came on the show to discuss her victimization at the hands of Muslim grooming/rape gangs — and her efforts to help victims and to protect future potential victims of a barbaric ingredient of Islamic Jihad.
EDITORS NOTE: The Glazov Gang is a fan-generated program. Please donate to keep it alive, subscribe to its YouTube Channel and LIKE it on Facebook. For details on advertising on our show or arranging your own appearance on a special segment, email us at theglazovgang@gmail.com.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/muslim-rape-gang-victim.jpg400640Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2015-08-12 05:07:492015-08-12 05:09:59VIDEO: Victim of Muslim Rape Gangs Speaks Out
Pope Francis has been chastising Europe for years now for not welcoming the hordes of migrants arriving on European shores and across its eastern borders. There is nothing new here. Apparently he must have gone to Lampedusa again.
I wonder how many migrants have been ‘welcomed’ to live at Vatican City? Does anyone know? Has anyone asked?
Meanwhile, British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond is quoted as saying: “marauding” migrants threatened the British “standard of living,” which brought howls of criticism from members of the ‘human rights industrial complex.’
Speaking to a youth group, he said the situation where desperate migrants were bounced from country to country seeking shelter was “an unresolved conflict… and this is war, this is violence, it’s called murder”.
In his speech on the island of Lampedusa in southern Italy the Pope called on European powers to do more to help the migrants that have been arriving on the island, according to the Gazzetta del Sud.Pope Francis has called the rejection of migrants fleeing violence “an act of war”.
Speaking to a youth group, he said the situation where desperate migrants were bounced from country to country seeking shelter was “an unresolved conflict… and this is war, this is violence, it’s called murder”.
In his speech on the island of Lampedusa in southern Italy the Pope called on European powers to do more to help the migrants that have been arriving on the island, according to the Gazzetta del Sud.
No surprise, the Independent goes on to criticize David Cameron quoting the Mayor of Calais calling Cameron a racist and then says this (below). Frankly, at the moment the UK is holding firm and trying to save itself from the invasion that is washing across southern Europe and into Germany and most of the rest of Europe.
Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond caused further controversy on Sunday when he told the BBC he believed “marauding” migrants threatened the British “standard of living”. Amnesty International condemned the remarks saying they were “mean spirited” and “shameful”.
For more in the ‘Invasion of Europe’ at RRW,go here.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/pope-reads-kuran.jpeg375639Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2015-08-11 07:15:572015-08-11 07:15:57Pope Francis: Rejection of Migrants “an act of war”
Over at PJ Media, I ask why authorities are still taking mosque leaders’ statements after terror arrests at face value.
It’s an iconic moment in American cinema, from Casablanca: Captain Renault tells Rick Blaine that he is “shocked! shocked!” to discover that gambling is going on in his establishment, and that it will be immediately closed — just as a clerk approaches and hands Renault his winnings. Muslims aren’t generally known for cinematic tributes, but mosque leaders around the country deserve Oscars for how they reenact this scene every time a jihadi is apprehended. For how long are law enforcement officials going to fall for the act?
The latest example comes courtesy of Arafat Nagi of Lackawanna, New York, who was arrested last week for recruiting for the Islamic State. According to WIVB, the local Muslim community is “devastated and in shock.”
In shock, eh? Dr. Khalid Qazi, President of the Muslim Public Affairs Council of Western New York, said that Nagi “had withdrawn from the community about three years ago. He had some domestic issues, some family issues.” Ah, that does explain it. Qazi is implying that Nagi was a bit unbalanced, leading to his involvement with the Islamic State, and that if he hadn’t withdrawn from the peaceful Muslim community three years ago, this wouldn’t have happened.
According to Qazi, Nagi only withdrew — he wasn’t expelled for his “extremism,” but withdrew — from the local Muslim community only three years ago. That means that for ten years after trying to join an al-Qaeda group, Nagi was presumably a member in good standing of the local Muslim community.
Clearly his recent arrest shows that he hadn’t given up his “extremism.” Yet when Nagi is arrested, the local community is “in shock”? They knew for at least thirteen yearsthat Nagi was a supporter of the violent jihad doctrine they supposedly reject and abhor. What was shocking about his arrest?
Qazi was, of course, posturing for the media and law enforcement authorities, and there is no indication that either didn’t wholly swallow his act. Indeed, despite the fact that this same act has played all over the country, it always gets rave reviews.
It played in Birmingham, Alabama, last April, when a young Muslim woman fled to the Islamic State. A spokesman for the girl’s parents — why did they need a spokesman? — said:
For them this is worse than losing the life of a child, to have them join such a horrible, horrible gang of violent extremists. Nothing can describe the pain they are facing.
The spokesman was none other than Hassan Shibly, a lawyer and the chief executive director of the Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group with established ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Shibly claimed that the woman had withdrawn from the local Muslim community a year before joining the Islamic State, and added:
The reason she withdrew from the community is because the Muslim community is very vocal against groups like ISIS … she made the decision based on her communication online with them that she wanted to join them.
He didn’t bother to explain why the peaceful Islam the young woman presumably learned from the community and her shocked and devastated parents wasn’t able to withstand the appeal of a supposedly twisted, hijacked version of the religion. He didn’t have to: he could be secure in the knowledge that no one would ask him to do so.
And so it goes. After the July 16 jihad massacre of U.S. Marines in Chattanooga by Mohammod Abdulazeez, the Times Free Press reported that Bassam Issa, president of the Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga:
… has said how shocked he was to find out that a young man who went to his mosque harbored radical ideas. He doesn’t see how anything Abdulazeez learned locally could have led to such thinking or to such a tragic plan.
And last April, a Muslim woman named Noelle Valentzas was arrested for plotting, along with another Muslim woman, a jihad bombing on U.S. soil. Valentzas’ husband, Abu Bakr, said of his wife’s arrest:
I don’t believe any of it, period. We are all shocked, the whole community. That’s not who she is.
But back in 2007, Abu Bakr was photographed at the Muslim Day Parade in New York City with the black flag of jihad. He carried it at other parades as well.
A particularly hammy version of this play-acting came in Rochester, New York in June 2014, when Mufid Elfgeeh, a Muslim local restaurant owner, was arrested for plotting to murder American soldiers. Sareer Fazili, President of the Islamic Center of Rochester, said:
Our religion is one of peace and one of submission and I think all of our friends in the faith based community know that. … I’m very shocked, I’m very upset, very disappointed that somebody who claims they follow Islam, the same religion that has been taught for so many years would think that he is within the bounds of our teachings because nothing could be further from the truth.
He was shocked to hear that someone who professes to be a Muslim would commit an act of violence? Really?
Had Sareer Fazili never heard of 9/11? 7/7? The Bali bombing? The Boston Marathon bombing? The Fort Hood massacre? Or any of the thousands of other jihad attacks perpetrated by people who not only profess to be Muslim, but say that when they bomb and kill they are following the teachings of Islam?
Fazili also said, according to WHEC, that he “does not believe Elfgeeh has ever been a member of the Islamic Center.” That may be, but it is noteworthy how so many devout Muslims who turn to violent jihad — Elfgeeh had tweeted “about the prophet Muhammad and terrorist groups fighting in the name of Allah” — never seem to go to mosque.
Every time there is a jihad attack or plot in the U.S., local Muslims say that no one knew him, he never went to mosque. Yet by their own words, these people are fanatically devout and observant….
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/casablanca6-e1439287237173.jpg435640Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2015-08-11 06:01:382015-08-11 06:03:14American Muslim Leaders Shocked, Shocked to Find that Terrorism Is Going On Here!
Josh, in Israel, emailed me. He said they are “living under the specter of the Iran deal and see where this is all heading.” They are extremely concerned. Josh said,“For starters what even gave him the right to lead such “negotiations” on behalf of the world? Who anointed him king, anyway?” Josh concluded, “Either Obama’s deal is insane or deliberate.”
Well Josh, the U.S. mainstream media has for all intents and purposes made Obama king. Concerned Americans say we are starting to resemble a banana republic (with a dishonest government ignoring laws). The MSM aggressively promotes whatever Obama wants the public to know and blocks was he does not.
For example: Everyone knows about the shooting of Cecil the lion. Due to a MSM insidious blackout of the story, 70% of Americans do not know about the real-life horror movie happening behind the walls of Planned Parenthood. The vile butchers at PP are illegally black marketing baby body parts (mostly black). A cause for PP staff to high-five and celebrate is when they score an intact dead baby because the profit is higher.
Think about that folks. The MSM has made sure the masses know nothing about Obama and Democrats supporting and covering up the PP illegal baby body parts chop shop scandal. And yet, everyone knows about the death of a lion.
The MSM also makes sure (King) Obama can lie with impunity. In my youth, I naively thought public officials cannot lie because we have video. If Obama lies to America and the MSM refuses to call him on it, does it make a sound?
Yo Morgan, I need you and that Black dude (Jack Black) to sell my nuke deal to my peeps. Whenever Obama wants to scam blacks his language becomes more urban. Black actor Morgan Freeman and other Hollywood liberals produced a video, “#Iran Deal is Awesome!” – to sell Obama’s nightmarish deal. The lie-filled video is an outrageous insult to Americans’ intelligence.
Clearly, Obama knows the MSM will help sell his lies. The Iran ego-driven irresponsible nuke deal is Obama urinating on America and Israel’s head while his minions tell us his golden nectar is divine rain that will ultimately produce beautiful flowers of peace. Frustratingly, black race loyalists, white guilt ridden Obama sycophants and Leftists will sigh and say, “Isn’t he wonderful?”
My announcer will tell you how Obama’s deal screws everyone.
Thanks Lloyd, and hereeee’s what Iran gets – over one hundred billion dollars to further its role as the world’s greatest exporters of terrorism. That’s right folks. The U.S. will be funding terrorism against itself.
The guy Obama made the deal with, Ayatollah Khamenei, along with Iranian hardliners chant, “Death to America!” Ayatollah Khamenei’s new book, “Palestine” instructs how to outsmart the U.S. and destroy Israel. Obama says chill-out, Khamenei does not mean it.
Obama says inspectors will have 24/7 access to Iran’s nuclear facilities to insure they are not making a bomb. Not true. The deal says inspectors must give Iran 24 days notice – which Iran can stretch even longer. Do I really need to elaborate on the absurdity of this Obama concession?
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Obama’s nuke deal will spark a middle east nuclear arms race. Well duh! If the neighborhood bully gets a gun, doesn’t self-preservation dictate that neighbors rush to acquire guns to defend themselves from the bully? Is Obama that stupid or is he, as Josh suggested, “deliberately” endangering Israel?
But wait folks, there’s more. Everyone on the planet knows Iran will break the deal and immediately pursue a nuclear bomb. In 2013, Obama backed Israel’s right to use force to stop them. Unbelievably, Obama’s Iran nuke deal requires the U.S. to defend Iran against Israel. Can you imagine the U.S. actually fighting our ally to protect terrorism? How satanic is that?
Regarding Israel (Genesis 12:3): “And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee.” – God
And now, back to you, Lloyd!
To my fellow black Christians who are going along with Obama’s evil deal, you should be ashamed of yourselves; choosing skin-color loyalty over God’s chosen people.
The Bible says, “Before I formed thee in thy mother’s womb, I knew thee…” To provide intact dead babies for its clients, PP abortion doctors deliver the entire baby except for the head (partial birth abortion). Then, the doctor inserts scissors into the base of the baby’s skull and forces the scissors up into its brain to kill the baby. Whether you are a Bible believer or not, your gut tells you this is evil. This fall, congress will vote whether or not to continue giving PP billions of taxpayer dollars in support of this evil.
In less the 50 days, congress will vote thumps up or down on Obama’s insane Iran nuke deal. Thumps up equals officially turning our backs on our ally, Israel.
Brother and sister Americans, if congress fails us on either of these two crucial issues, how can we expect God to bless America?
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/obama-cross.jpg425640Lloyd Marcushttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngLloyd Marcus2015-08-10 14:20:042015-08-10 14:20:04Killing Babies – Betraying Israel – God Bless America?
Sorry, if I will offend some of you, but I am pretty much a one issue voter. The future of America is not going to hang on what happens to Obamacare or any other social program.
The future of America and indeed the future of Western Civilization hangs on one thing only—what we do about immigration and specifically what happens with the migration (the Hijra) of Islamic supremacists the world over.
Carly Fiorina, former chairman and chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard Co.
Fox News seems to be making sure that Carly Fiorina moves up in the polls. Yes, I agree, she spoke well in the debate last week. But, I won’t let you forget what she said right after 9/11. It’s not her facts (or her lack of facts) that is a problem, it is her judgement in uttering the words she spoke.
Here, Gates of Vienna, reposts an article that was written in June. It begins:
“There was once a civilization that was the greatest in the world.”
And so began a mythical, deceptive tale by Carly Fiorina, when she spoke in praise of Islam within a mere two weeks of their bombing of the World Trade Center. The concern is not that she was attempting to deceive others, but that she, a person who aspires to the presidency of the United States, was herself deceived regarding the true nature of Islam, and that she has never retracted her statements.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/carly-fiorina-3.jpg427640Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2015-08-10 12:50:322015-08-10 12:52:47Before You Get Too Excited about Presidential Candidate Ms. Carly
The British media traditionally refers to the month of August as ‘silly season’, but apart from the blanket coverage of the sad fate of Cecil the lion, this silly season has been notable for being remarkably un-silly. Received wisdom has it that with Parliament away there are no political stories for the media to report on. But nothing could be further from the truth this year.
The migrant crisis in the Mediterranean and stretching to Calais shows no sign of letting up just because MPs are in their constituencies or on their holidays. And nor are the stories of the continuously emerging awfulness of the Iran deal slowing just because Parliament is not in session. The fact – not very surprising – is that politics goes on all the time as usual, whether Parliament is in session or not.
It must be hoped, however, that the break does some good to our political class. Standing back from the day-to-day running of Westminster can provide an opportunity to survey the real political landscape rather than getting bogged down in the procedural issues which take up so much of any politician’s day. Watching the ongoing political fight in Washington is a reminder of this.
At the time of writing a number of very significant leading Democrats look like they are going to come out against their own President’s deal with Iran. In doing so it is perfectly possible that they are performing career hara-kiri. It seems inevitable that whether Congress votes against the deal or not the President, and those around him, are unlikely to forgive or do much to support the future of those who have voted against them. Chicago politics can work just as easily in Washington.
But the Democrats in particular who choose to vote against the deal are doing so for an extraordinary and admirable reason: they are willing to put their concern for the future of their country and the future of the world ahead of concerns over the future of their careers. It is not too cynical to say that this order of priorities is not always present in politics. But this is an important moment. Even if the President gets his way with the deal, the rebellion of a large enough number of members of his own party could still succeed in signalling just what a mistake America and her allies are making.
New stories have emerged this week of the Iranian regime’s genocidal rhetoric against America and her allies. Perhaps people are so used to this that it has become background noise. But this background noise is going on whilst in the foreground the same regime is getting the biggest financial, diplomatic and military boost it could possibly ever have. If you stand back from everything else that is going on this is the big story. What would be silly would be not to recognise that.
FROM THE DIRECTOR’S DESK
It is 70 years since the detonation of an atomic bomb at Hiroshima introduced the world to a terrifying new form of warfare in the form of nuclear weapons. Since that time much effort has been expended by nations seeking to obtain this technology, with Iran being but the latest example. Concurrently, equal attempts have been made to ensure further proliferation does not occur.
In recent weeks, I have spent a fair bit of time defending Britain’s own nuclear arsenal in the face of assaults from those who would wish to see us give up our independent nuclear deterrent when the time comes shortly to replace our ageing Trident capability. While no reasonable person could be against the idea of controlled multilateral disarmament – and great strides have been made in this direction since the peaking of nuclear arsenals in the 1980s – unilateral disarmament is quite a different prospect. It would strip the UK of the ultimate deterrent at a time of increasing, rather than decreasing, global instability, with any number of major threats on the horizon. Which British Prime Minister could credibly give up our nuclear weapons at a time when Mr Putin menaces Europe’s and NATO’s eastern borders, and the Middle East is at its most uncertain point in a century, for example?
I rather fear that the goal of ‘Global Zero’ – the push to physically eliminate nuclear weapons or to put them beyond possible use – is also doomed to failure. While noble in intent, the obvious flaw in this approach is that you cannot uninvent technology that has been invented and that as a consequence, the temptation to cheat and keep a small stockpile is just too great. Would we really trust Russia and China to give up all their weapons if we did, let alone Pakistan and North Korea?
Unfortunate as it may be, nuclear weapons are here to stay. The challenge remains to regulate their numbers, avoid their use and prevent dangerous states like Iran from acquiring them.
Dr Alan Mendoza is Executive Director of The Henry Jackson Society
Follow Alan on Twitter: @AlanMendoza
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/iran-p5-e1389697753788.jpg359640Henry Jackson Societyhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngHenry Jackson Society2015-08-09 08:00:272015-08-09 08:00:27Iran: Decision Time For Democrats
A good opportunity for “Muslim-Christian dialogue”:
Let’s put the pope’s Muslim-Christian “dialogue” policy to the test. Here’s the perfect destination for the next papal trip: Raqqa, the de facto capital of the Islamic State’s caliphate.
Last Sunday, Pope Francis called for the release of Gregorios Yohanna Ibrahim (the Syriac Orthodox archbishop of Aleppo), Boulos Yazigi (the Greek Orthodox bishop of Aleppo), and Italian Jesuit priest Paolo Dall’Oglio, who — if they are still alive — have all been held captive for two years now by Islamic jihadists in Syria. Said the pope:
I hope for a renewed commitment by the competent local and international authorities, so that these, our brothers, will soon be restored to freedom.
He must know that the “competent local and international authorities,” if there are any, aren’t going to do a thing to free these clerics.
If the pope wants it done right, he is going to have to do it himself – and in doing so, he can prove the value of the Church’s insistence and dependence upon “Muslim-Christian dialogue.”
The pope should go to Raqqa and appeal personally to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Islamic State’s Caliph Ibrahim, for the release of Ibrahim, Yazigi, and Dall’Oglio. Pope Francis has said that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence,” and he has assiduously called for “dialogue” and denounced violence in virtually every situation. So he should go there, and display the correctness of his recommendations by initiating an in-person “dialogue” with the caliph or other appropriate Islamic State representatives, during which he can explain to them how they are misunderstanding the Qur’an and Islam.
This will fix everything: not only will the Islamic State forthwith release the bishops and the priest, but they will lay down their arms, and distribute flowers to all the children. The power of “dialogue” over all forms of violence will be abundantly established before the eyes of a world struck with awe, yet again, at the wisdom of this pope and the compelling power of his humble, saintly personality.
As he prepares for this “dialogue” trip, however, the pope may face resistance from his own bishops.
Robert McManus, the bishop of Worcester, Massachusetts, two years ago (ironically not long before Ibrahim, Yazigi, and Dall’Oglio were abducted) summed up the prevailing view of the U.S. Catholic bishops:
Talk about extreme, militant Islamists and the atrocities that they have perpetrated globally might undercut the positive achievements that we Catholics have attained in our inter-religious dialogue with devout Muslims.
So what is Pope Francis doing even talking about these abducted clerics? He should keep quiet about such matters, so as to preserve the “dialogue.” Will Bishop McManus and the other American bishops, recognizing the dignity but also the limitations of his positions, humbly but unmistakably call him on the carpet and “oppose him to his face, because he stood condemned,” as St. Paul did to Francis’ first predecessor, St. Peter (Galatians 2:11)?
Of course they will say nothing, and Pope Francis will not go to Raqqa, because in both cases the concerned parties probably know full well that the sham of the “dialogue” policy would be exposed to the world.
The contemporary Catholic Church, especially in the West, has confused niceness with charity.
It may be nice to avoid unpleasant matters and to enjoy delicious hummus and pita down at the mosque, but it is not charitable to confirm Muslims in their bullying and supremacism by kowtowing to their wishes.
It is not charitable to keep silent about the atrocities they commit in the name of their religion and in accord with its teachings….
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Francisdoves-1-e1439116677200.jpg370640Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2015-08-09 06:39:172015-08-09 06:39:17Why doesn’t the Pope go to Syria?
Throughout the annals of history, these are most certainly times that not only try men’s souls but are also rendering everything that is good to the back of the bus. It is bad enough that people do wrong. Human beings have been committing evil deeds ever since Eve was duped by Satan and then convinced Adam (who knew better) to partake in an activity they should not have. Thus the ongoing war between good and evil was on and the rest is history.
When Arab Islamic Muslims first enslaved Africans hundreds of years before the first European explorers began to purchase African slaves from the Muslims, there was an equal and opposite effort that eventually arose. The brutality of slavery was eventually seen by millions of British and United States citizens as an evil that had to be extinguished.
When the church and the king of England both became obsessed with power over the people, some British subjects said enough is enough and sought to find land where they could worship the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob in peace and tranquility. Out of their disdain for the ongoing abuses in the land of the Union Jack was born the Christian based belief in Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
There are many including yours truly, who believes that the United States was meant to be the supreme opposite of what has been an ongoing system of survival of the fittest enduring the brutal boot heel of tyrannical governments. America once stood out, because she was refreshingly different. Her numerous foundational documents ranging from The Articles of Confederation to the Bill of rights paved an inspired path toward greatness. That path benefited both individuals who sought to engage in the bountiful opportunities availing themselves and the government that built into it’s foundational doctrines the recognition of the God given unalienable rights that come from him.
In more recent times, the late great President Ronald Reagan represented a stunning and invigorating contrast to the malaise of his inept predecessor, President Jimmy Carter. Reagan refused to appease our republic’s adversaries. He also fought to roll back the economy stifling regulations that had beaten our economy into submission.
As “We the People” prepare to choose the next leader of the free world, let us take into consideration the importance of picking someone who represents being different. In other words, America can no longer thrive as a great nation with leadership that is hell bent on dragging her down a path that not only inhibits economic prosperity, but also places her in mortal danger. Let us not forget there are many who would like nothing more than to rid the world of the one nation that has been an impediment to global despots who believe that forcing people to live as they say to exist or suffer the consequences.
Millions of Christians, black Africans and many others have been murdered by Muslim groups like the Islamic Stat for the sport of it, primarily because of the accommodating (or worse) approach of the current United States administration. One of the things that New Zealand author and orator Trevor Loudon has been doing for quite some time is crisscrossing the United States for a number of years reminding Americans of our nations place of greatness and how much the world (including his nation) of New Zealand depends on this beacon of light republic. We are at an absolute crossroads. The time has arrived for us to return America to our God ordained position of greatness and beacon of hope to the world. Or we can slink away into oblivion on our nation’s current slide toward second tier status, leaving the world including our allies to try and do their best to overcome challenges posed by dedicated Muslims and traditional tyrannical enemies like China and Russia. While these are certainly the times that try men’s souls that is no reason why we as Americans have to give in or give up, because of the horrific challenges. I challenge everyone who cares about America to join in the fight for the future generations of this republic. If we don’t act now, it will soon be too late. Do you want to have to tell your children and grandchildren that our nation ended up on the ash heap of history because you didn’t want to make waves or stand for the proven principles that made our nation the envy of the world?
Yes these are trying times, but with God’s leadership and help they can become the best of times. Dear reader, either you shall choose life or we shall choose death. America’s future is in the balance.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/we-live-in-perverted-times-my-friend.jpg400640Ron Edwardshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRon Edwards2015-08-07 07:03:392015-08-07 08:13:15Oh What Times We Live In
AUGUST 6, 2015 – Today, on the fourth anniversary of the shoot down of NAVY SEAL helicopter, call sign – Extortion 17, we re-release this critically important Press Conference that took place on May 9, 2013 in Washington, D.C.
Lest We Forget: Below is a composite of those who died on Extortion 17:
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/extortion-17-revised.jpg320640Defend The Borderhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDefend The Border2015-08-06 17:37:592015-08-09 06:50:57Remembering the Shoot Down of Navy SEAL Helicopter ‘Extortion 17’ on August 6, 2011
Yesterday, President Obama used the venue of American University’s new Center of International Service in our nation’s capital to present a 55 minute partisan speech directed at wavering Democrat Senators and Representatives in Congress. He suggested that the nuclear pact with Iran was better than the alternative, war. He chose the campus located in northwest Washington, because it was there on June 10, 1963, that President Kennedy gave a Commencement address announcing an important Cold War initiative; a joint effort with Chairman Khrushchev of the Soviet Union and Britain’s Harold Macmillan seeking a comprehensive nuclear weapons test ban treaty and unilaterally ending atmospheric testing.
This was the first substantive developments among these antagonists following the October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when the world teetered on the brink of a possible nuclear exchange. In his speech, Kennedy asked the graduates to re-examine their attitudes towards peace, the Soviet Union, and the Cold War, famously remarking, “If we cannot end now our differences, at least we can make the world safe for diversity.” Kennedy unlike Obama gave a masterful and succinct presentation in less than 27 minutes to get his points across. Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu took 24 minutes to outline his opposition to the Iran nuclear deal, inclusive of his response to questions from a large U.S. and Canadian audience via webcast.
Watch President Kennedy’s 1963 American University Commencement address:
The Wall Street Journalnoted the hortatory and accusatory rhetoric of the President Obama’s remarks:
Congressional rejection of this deal leaves any U.S. administration that is absolutely committed to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon with one option: another war in the Middle East. So let’s not mince words. The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war.
Following the President’s speech, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman, Bob Corker (R-TN) told reporters:
The president is trying to turn this into a partisan issue, but there is bipartisan concern.
He went out of his way lambasting the opposing Republican majorities in Congress as the party of war mongers. He tied them to the legacy of the Bush II Wars in Iraq suggesting the outcome was the morphing of Al Qaeda in Iraq into the Islamic State or ISIL. He said the cost was thousands killed, tens of thousands injured at a price of a trillion dollars. To divided American Jews, he told them that he had improved the Jewish nation’s Qualitative Military Edge with commitment of billions in conventional military aid. He implied that support would enable Israel to overcome the Islamic Regime’s existential threats of “Death to America, Death to Israel, Death to Jews,” notwithstanding Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s holocaust denial and Antisemitism. Obama criticized Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s opposition to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) for Iran’s nuclear program. He suggested that Netanyahu’s alternative of simply “squeezing” Iran’s theocratic leadership was not a better solution, and might lead to war. Netanyahu argues that the current Iran nuclear deal actually provides multiple pathways for Iran to achieve nuclear breakout leading to possible war.
In a post speech dialogue with Washington pundits, the President deepened his partisan criticism of Republican opponents to the Iran nuclear deal. Gerald Seib, who writes a dailyCapitol Column for The Wall Street Journalreported the President saying:
There is a particular mindset that was on display in the run-up to the Iraq war that continues to this day. Some of the folks that were involved in that decision either don’t remember what they said or are entirely unapologetic about the results. This mindset views the Middle East as a place where force and intimidation will deliver on the security interests that we have, and that it is not possible for us to at least test the possibility of diplomacy. Those views are prominent now in the Republican Party.
Both Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) found that criticism “galling,” as Mr. Obama “presided over the collapse of our hard-won gains in Iraq.”
Watch the Washington Post video of President Obama’s 2015 American University speech:
While Obama’s speech was being delivered at American University there was a hearing before the Senate Banking Committee, chaired by Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) focused on sanctions relief under the terms of the Iran nuclear deal. Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman appeared saying “that I didn’t see the final documents. I saw the provisional documents, as did my experts.” Thus, suggesting that the IAEA side deals were not going to unearth prior military developments at Parchin and other known locations.
An appearance by Director General of the UN IAEA, Ukiya Amano in a separate Capitol Hill briefing Wednesday lent the distinct impression that the UN nuclear watchdog agency was not going to disclose the so-called side agreements with Iran, nor would it have the suggested “robust” verification regime that the President has touted. That gave rise to skepticism by Senate opponents, that no base line would be established for prior military developments at Parchin, an alleged center for nuclear warhead development. The Wall Street Journal reported Mr. Amano saying that IAEA inspectors had been denied access to key scientists and military officials for interviews. Following his closed door briefing to a bi-partisan group of Senators, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Corker commented, “I would say most members left with greater concerns about the inspection regime than we came in with.” Senator John Barroso (R-WY) concluded, “My impression listening to him was the promises the President made were not verifiable.” Democrat supporters of the Iran deal like Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) followed the White House line that “it didn’t matter as we already knew what Iran had developed.”
At yesterday’s Senate Banking, Housing and Community Affairs hearing, a panel of experts spoke about the lifting of sanctions and if there was a better deal. The panel included former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Crimes, Juan C. Zarate, Mark Dubowitz executive director of the Washington, DC based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and former State Department official Nicholas Burns of Harvard’s Kennedy School. Dubowitz in his testimony suggested that the deal should be amended, eliminating the sunset provisions and the so-called snap back sanctions. As precedent for possible amendment of the JCPOA, he noted more than “250 bi-lateral and multi-lateral agreements and treaties from the Cold War Era.”
Watch this C-span video excerpt of FDD’s Dubowitz’s testimony:
Last night, the PBS News Hour host Gwen Ifill had a segment with Burns and Ray Takeyh a former Obama adviser on Iran during his first term now a Senior Fellow with the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), Is Obama’s Iran deal rhetoric working? Burns, who is an adviser to Secretary Kerry, said:
I think, as Americans, we ought to have the self-confidence to try diplomacy first, rather than war. I will say this, Gwen, in answer to your specific question. I think the President ought to have a big tent policy here. To say that if the deal is turned down, if Congress defeats the President and overrides his veto in December, then that leads to war, I think, is a little stark.
Takeyh commented:
Jack Kennedy’s speech was lofty, idealistic. I think, if I quote it right, he said we shouldn’t wave the finger of accusation or issue indictments.
I think the President was unyielding. He was passionate, but his tone was at times truculent. And he didn’t make a successful pitch to his critics. This is a technologically flawed agreement, and the President should have attempted to broaden the parameters of the conversation about this agreement. I think, in that sense, the president missed his mark, and I think it was unwise.
Takeyh, who is also an adviser to FFD’s Iran Project, buttressed Dubowitz’s Senate testimony saying:
The history of arms controls suggest, when there’s Congressional objections, as was the case in SALT-I and SALT-II, and the President mentioned those, there is an attempt to go back and renegotiate aspects of this. And I think that’s what the President should have done when he met the criticism, as opposed to just dismiss it.
There are aspects of this agreement that are very problematic, such as the sunset clause, where, after essentially 10 years, Iran gets to embark on an industrial-sized nuclear program. And when you have an industrial-sized nuclear program, there is no inspection modality that can detect a sneak-out to a weapon option.
The President essentially, even now, after the rejection of the deal, should there be one, has a chance to go back, renegotiate some aspect of the deal, and therefore strengthen it. And as he strengthens that deal, I think he can broaden the bipartisan support for it.
I would be very concerned if I was a supporter of this deal that this deal is based on such a narrow margin of public support on the Hill. I think the longevity of this deal is seriously questioned by its absence of bipartisan support.
When questioned by Burns about reopening negotiations, Takeyh drew attention to other issues in the Iran nuclear pact that could be rectified through amendment:
I think it will be very difficult, but not impossible, because some of these provisions are so glaringly flawed that I think other countries would welcome negotiations.
I mentioned the sunset clause. Iran’s development of IR-8 centrifuges, which essentially produce uranium 17 times faster, and that gives Iran enrichment capacity that is quite substantial — the verification on this deal is extraordinarily imperfect.
The president keeps talking about that this is the most intrusive verification system, and the only other verification system that was more intrusive resulted from the Iraq War and the armistice. That’s just not true.
South Africa, under Nelson Mandela, agreed to anytime/anywhere inspection, which, in practice, you had access to military facilities within one day. So we can go back and renegotiate four, five, six aspects of this agreement. The history of arms controls is replete with such exercises.
And I think if you do that, this agreement would be strengthened. It will be based on a bipartisan anchor; it would ensure its longevity. It would ensure that proliferation cascade in the Middle East will not take place, and it will ensure that Iran will not sneak out to a bomb.
Watch the PBS News Hour segment with Burns and Takeyh:
Takeyh’s colleague and long term President of the CFR, Dr. Richard N. Haass in testimony on August 4th before the Senate Armed Services Committee suggested:
That any vote by Congress to approve the pact should be linked to legislation or a White House statement that makes clear what the United States would do if there were Iranian non-compliance, what would be intolerable in the way of Iran’s long-term nuclear growth, and what the US was prepared to do to counter Iranian threats to US interests and friends in the region.
With each Senate and House Hearing on the Iran nuclear pact, more is revealed about why this is a bad deal. However, as witnessed by the Congressional testimony of experts like Dubowitz of the FDD, Takeyh and Haass of the CFR, it appears that Obama and Kerry didn’t follow the experience garnered from Cold War era arms control negotiations. Congress should be the veritable “bad cop” to fend off and reign in the concession demands of the Islamic regime’s negotiators in Lausanne and Vienna. We understand that several Republican Senators and House Members are drafting resolutions for rejection of the Iran nuclear pact. Perhaps they might include recommendations for amendment of the JCPOA endeavoring to make it a better deal. However, the President has chosen a partisan path that does not welcome bi-partisan deliberation. Perhaps the option is for the resolutions to reject the pact and schedule a vote as a treaty, assuming the President may have the votes to override a veto. As we have discussed there is also possible litigation that might achieve the same end.
It is going to be a long hot summer recess for Members of Congress in their states and districts holding town hall hearings to gauge the pulse of constituents on the President’s nuclear deal with Iran.
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/obama-iran1.jpg337600Jerry Gordonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJerry Gordon2015-08-06 16:33:422015-08-06 16:47:57Analysis of President Obama’s Partisan American University Speech
