Tag Archive for: Syria

Iranian General Injured in Syria

/in , , /by

 US Amy Brig. Gen. (ret.) Ernie Audino, former Combat Adviser to the Kurdish Peshmerga, brought us interesting news.  Kurdish sources reported Iranian Quds Force commander, Gen. Qasem Suleimani has been wounded in action near Aleppo, Syria and evacuated to Tehran. If confirmed this is a stunning development as Suleimani was de facto commander of combined Iranian, Syrian national and Hezbollah forces propping up the Assad regime and directing Shiite militias in Iraq. This news comes following reports of IRGC heavy casualties in Syria. This will not be good news for the alleged interests of Putin in Syria. The issue is who caught Suleimani and his security unawares in Syria, Was it the Free Syrian Army, ISIS, al Nusrah, or the Syrian Kurdish YPG?

Here is the Kurdish BASNews report.

Reports: Iranian General Qassem Suleimani Wounded in Syria

TEHRAN – Local media are reporting that Iranian Quds Force Commander General Qassem Suleimani has been wounded in fighting in Syria, and is currently receiving medical treatment in Tehran.

Al-Arabiya TV claims that Amir Mousavi, director of the Center for Strategic Studies and International Relations in Tehran has confirmed Suleimani is injured and is in a stable condition in hospital.

In a press conference, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said that while they have heard the news, they cannot confirm it.

Syrian opposition media reported that Suleimani wounded about 12 days ago in clashes around Aleppo, northern Syria, with two others. So far the Iranian government has not commented.

There were also reports in late October that claimed Suleimani was wounded in Syria; however the Iranian army dismissed the rumors. Iranian casualties in Syria are on the rise, notably the death of Hussein Hamadani, a senior Iranian commander and close friends of Suleimani.

According to media reports, in the last two months alone almost 80 Iranian soldiers have been killed by anti-Syrian regime forces.

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

Searching for a Syria Endgame Strategy

/in , , , , /by

Anyone needing to be reminded of the unintended consequences of military intervention might consider this week a tutorial. Anyone could foresee a certain complexity in the skies above Syria, but the direction from which that complexity comes is nevertheless always surprising.

The lack of unity in international action in Syria was obviously, and long before this week, a problem. France and America may have a clear idea of the aims of their aerial campaign, but their aims are not the aims of the Russians. And the aims of the Russians are not the same as the aims of the Turks. To the extent that the international community is involved in Syria it is still pursuing a whole range of different and contradictory agendas. These nations have all bundled into a situation which threw up new problems consistently from the start.

Yet the shooting-down of a Russian plane by Turkish forces undeniably adds a further level of complexity to this already tangled situation. And the response of both sides has been not only contradictory between themselves but individually too. Turkey’s claims have shifted as facts have come out, and Russian denial of certain clear facts does not make the subject any clearer.

But as Britain’s Parliament debates the rights and wrongs of British action against Isis in Syria all of this should act as a reminder. Not only of the necessity of preparedness in our armed forces but a preparedness for the unexpected fall-out which military action always brings.

A broad coalition against Isis is obviously desirable and cooperation between as many countries as possible is not only a diplomatic but a strategic necessity. But anyone who thinks this involvement is cost free is ignoring recent history. The government’s rationale for intervention in Syria now is different from its rationale two years ago and comprises action against a different side. And so it would be wise not just to exercise military preparedness but to complement it with a sober and complete political objective. In particular it is vital that the intervention’s aims are not only desirable and achievable, but specific.

The temptation of mission-creep is well documented and has plagued recent interventions. A clear and unified objective to destroy Isis is in everyone’s interests. But in order to achieve that we must have a vision not only for what the start of action looks like, but what its end will look like too.

Senator Marco Rubio straddling the fence on Muslim refugees/Muslim migration

/in , , , , , , , /by

Julia Hahn has another good piece at Breitbart yesterday (hat tip: Joanne) on the refugee resettlement controversy and how it is roiling the 2016 Presidential campaign.

Haven’t we seen what happens when a boy runs this country?  And, so I can’t believe that any thinking person could say that Florida Senator Marco Rubio is ready for the job—don’t you think it’s time for an alpha male?  (O.K. throw tomatoes, eggs, whatever at me, I said it and stick by it!).

Somali terror woman

This Somali refugee woman was convicted of terror funding in Minnesota in 2013.

Here is Hahn about what Senator Rubio said yesterday in an interview with Chris Wallace:

In a surprising twist in the 2016 election, presidential aspirant Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) has proposed a new plan for helping President Obama resettle Syrian refugees in the United States.

Under Rubio’s new proposal, outlined on FOX News Sunday, the United States would focus on resettling the oldest and youngest refugees inside the United States, including those orphaned and widowed in what has become an Islamist battleground.

Rubio argued these refugees could be admitted under the “commonsense” test: “the 5-year-old orphan, a 90-year-old widow, and well-known Chaldean priest, these are obviously commonsense applications, and you can clearly vet them just by commonsense.”

This new tactic may be a politically risky one for Senator Rubio, as an outright majority of all voters oppose any Syrian resettlement—and, according to Rasmussen, 65 percent of conservative voters want zero refugees admitted into the U.S. from the Middle East.

Rubio cannot be trusted on immigration, the most important issue this country faces, or may ever face!

rubio

Continue reading here and consider a few additional points.

Once the women (not all will be old because they won’t leave the young mothers and bring in the children) are admitted they can apply, under the present refugee program, for their family members to join them (this is called chain migration).  In 2008, the Wall Street Journal first reported the shocking (maybe not so shocking!) news that thousands of Somalis had entered the US illegally by claiming a relationship to those already here.  The family reunification (P-3) was closed by the US State Department for years, but is now wide open again.

We covered the discovery and aftermath extensively, here.  The fraud was originally reported at the Wall Street Journal in August of 2008.

Even for those who say the State Department could now catch the fraudsters, does anyone really think that the women and children won’t be quickly applying for more family members to join them.  On what grounds would the husbands be refused?

~ Hahn discusses it, but I want to reiterate that it is the next generation of a refugee family where the jihadist recruitment is happening.  The parents might pass security checks while it is those little children (grown up) we raised and educated with our tax dollars who are thumbing their noses at your generosity and heading off to join al-Shabaab and ISIS.  Remember this?  Just a few news stories beginning back in 2008!

~And, what on earth makes Rubio think that American taxpayers are willing to bring in old women who will be placed immediately on Supplemental Social Security? See here, once and for all—-refugees over 65 years old are eligible for benefits under SSI!

~Hahn mentions Senator Rand Paul who was brave back in 2013 when he realized refugee terrorists had been resettled in his home town and wondered out loud why we were bringing in all the Iraqis and putting them on welfare.  He has since stopped asking that question, why?  Here is our complete archive on Rand Paul and Iraqi refugees.   See especially here and here (what role did Grover play in dissuading Paul from earlier critical comments?).

Following that Syrian refugee “vetting” shiny object?

And, my final thought as I watch and listen to Syrian refugee news on TV and on radio:  Are we being distracted (I know Trump is!) by the Syrian refugee resettlement plan at a point in time when we are bringing in thousands of other Muslim refugees who frankly can’t be screened much better—thousands and thousands of Somalis and Iraqis for instance (Uzbeks, Rohingya and Afghans too)?

I think the average American (watching TV) is thinking that the Syrians are the only refugees we are bringing in from the Middle East and Africa, and it isn’t helping them understand the serious implications of resettlement when they think the resettlement is in the future and that Obama is to blame—Republicans have supported the migration for decades as well!  They are here!

And, on the vetting issue, we have plenty of evidence that the youngsters are growing up radicalized (more devout!) in the US and the West generally, so let’s stop talking about vetting for just a few minutes!

CNN Fails to ‘Vet’ Radical Muslim Guest

/in , , , , /by

Over at PJ Media today I discuss CNN “journalist” Christiane Amanpour’s manifest bias and hypocrisy:

CNN’s Christiane Amanpour believes “we can all afford to be human” regarding the Syrian refugees. Recently, she condemned the U.S. and other countries for not letting them enter the homeland, despite FBI Director James Comey’s testimony explaining that vetting this population is literally impossible.

Apparently, “discerning” does not qualify as a human trait to Amanpour. Because soon after she offered her ill-considered, slanderous logic equating “responsible” with “heartless,” she employed this advice in her own decision-making — and she was taken.

Amanpour demonstrated exactly how Islamic radicals have learned to take advantage of those bearing her viewpoint.

Last Thursday, Amanpour invited Dalil Boubakeur, chairman of the Grand Mosque of Paris, to a sit-down interview. During the interview, Boubakeur strongly denounced the Islamic State (ISIS) and called for military action against it. He then declared that the barbarous terror group behind the Paris attacks had nothing to do with Islam:

Our religion is not one of violence, of jihadism, of terrorism, of women who kill. In what page of Qur’an is that written that a woman must take bombs inside her body to explode and kill other people? In what part of Qur’an is that said? In what page of Qur’an is it said that we shall kill innocent people? Young people?

Boubakeur then lamented that “little by little,” the Islamic State had won over the young Muslims of Europe. He declared that it was a “great error … not only of Muslims, but of the world to accept this.”

Then, Boubakeur called on Muslims in France to assimilate:

[It is] very important [for] French Muslim people to express their French nationality, their French taste, their French values, their French [rejection] of what is the danger for them, France, and for our religion also.

Had Amanpour recognized vetting as rational behavior — and understood her own viewpoint as reckless and irresponsible — then she would have known that Boubakeur’s insistence on “assimilation” could be nothing but a preposterous, exploitative lie considering his past behavior.

Homeland security expert Patrick Poole reported on Boubakeur’s rejection of Islamic “assimilation” with Western values in PJ Media last January. Boubakeur certainly does not oppose ISIS’s — or, in general, Islam’s — embrace of violence when he isn’t on Amanpour’s set:

[I]n 2006 at the height of the Danish Cartoon crisis, Boubakeur had published an article denouncing the cartoons and concluded by issuing a warning to all those — including Charlie Hebdo — who would publish caricatures of Mohammed, saying: “He who sows the whirlwind shall reap the whirlwind.”

Stop drawing Muhammad, and start abiding by Sharia blasphemy laws … or else.

Boubakeur, rather than being the assimilation-supporting, violence-spurning moderate Amanpour wanted him to be, is guilty of fanning the violence that resulted in deadly riots across the globe and ended in the horrific slaughter at Charlie Hebdo’s offices.

Boubakeur’s interview answers were no doubt music to the ears of Amanpour, as they matched the narrative she pushed in her September op-ed published by CNN wherein she castigated the U.S. for not taking more Syrian refugees. In the op-ed, Amanpour described the following as “heartwarming”:

… ordinary citizens, the responsible media, and generous governments all opening their arms to welcome a modern, yet biblical tide of humanity, fleeing war and persecution to safety here in Europe.

She scolded the U.S. and Canada:

… countries with big hearts, deep pockets and a habit of projecting their humanitarian values [are] unwilling to actually help end the war that would stop this exodus.

The U.S., she lamented:

… has only accepted fewer than 1,500 Syrian asylum seekers over the course of the war.

Amanpour did not address in her piece the real reason why many in the U.S. and elsewhere are reluctant to take in large numbers of these refugees: the prospect of Islamic jihadis being among them.

The Islamic State boasted last February that they would soon inundate Europe with 500,000 refugees. The Lebanese education minister recently warned that there were 20,000 active jihadis among the Syrian refugees in camps in his country. An Islamic State operative boasted in September, shortly after the migrant influx into Europe began, that among the flood of refugees, 4,000 terrorists had already entered Europe.

None of that information made it into Amanpour’s piece. She likely is confident that Obama administration officials will be able to “vet” the refugees they admit into the U.S., as they have repeatedly promised to do….

She must understand now that to heed her call, to bring in those refugees in large numbers, might make her temporarily feel good about how tolerant and multicultural she is, but will be cold comfort to the rest of us when the bombs start exploding.

Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Tunisia: Islamic jihadists murder at least 12 with bomb on bus full of presidential guards

Roman Catholic bishop Robert Barron advocates strategy of submission to the Islamic State

The Muslim Parasite and the Western Host

/in , , , , , /by

There has been much discussion about the coordinated Muslim migration from Syria to Europe and the United States. This migration has been called by some a parasitic one, as Muslims become welfare recipients of the host nation while they maintain their sacred duty to remain devout followers of Mohammed.

History shows how the followers of Mohammed cannot by Muslim law (shariah) integrate or assimilate into the host nation’s culture. Rather they feed off the host country until the time when they have sufficient political, financial, social and military power to overthrow the host country and replace it with Islam.

Europe is witnessing a revolution against the Muslim “invasion.”

Columnist Robert Heller in an email titled “Why Christian refugees should be given priority to emigrate to the U.S.” writes:

Christians are earmarked for genocide by the Islamic State. Many have already been beheaded or otherwise slaughtered. When President Obama said there should not be a religious test he omitted the fact that people marked for genocide and extinction should by all human instincts be saved from certain death. These people marked for death happen to be Christian.

If the Islamic State decided all people with blue eyes or black skin should be marked for genocide would President Obama say we don’t recognize their plight over Muslims who wish to emigrate because living in a war torn country is dangerous or difficult.

The issue is not whether a person is Christian; it is that this particular group of people are subject to rape, torture and death above all others. Obama’s effort to make this a Christian or Muslim religious issue is beyond comprehension.

Former Israeli Ambassador Yoram Ettinger, in his column “Second Thought: A U.S.-Israel Initiative”, writes:

Europe has ignored the significant impact on contemporary Islamic geo-strategy by crucial milestones in the life of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, such as the 7th century Hijrah (Islam-driven emigration). Muhammad emigrated/fled from Mecca to Yathrib (Medina) – along with his loyalists – not to be integrated and blend into Medina’s social, economic or political environment, but to advance and spread Islam through conversion, subversion and terrorism, if necessary.  Asserting himself over his hosts and rivals in Medina, Muhammad gathered a critical mass of military might to conquer Mecca and launch Islam’s drive to dominate the world.

In 1966, this Hijrah precedent was applied by Mahmoud Abbas, Arafat and the entire Fatah leadership which emigrated/fled from Syria to Jordan, incited the Palestinian population of Jordan, but failed in their attempt to topple the hosting Hashemite regime. In 1976, they failed in their attempt to topple the regime in Beirut, which had hosted them since they emigrated/fled from Jordan in 1970. In 1990, they collaborated with Saddam Hussein’s invasion and plunder of Kuwait, stabbing the back of the Sabah family, which had hosted them, their relatives and PLO associates since they emigrated/fled from Egypt in the mid-1950s.

On Friday morning, November 13, 2015, a few hours before Islamic terrorists launched their offensive against France, French Muslim children studied – and French Muslim adults heard in French mosques – that according to the Quran, humanity must submit to the prophet Muhammad, and the “infidel” must accept Sharia’ laws; “Holy War” (Jihad) must be conducted on behalf of Islam, and the participation in the Jihad rewards one with the benefits of paradise; the abode of the “believers” (Dar al-Islam) must be expanded into the abode of the “infidels” (Dar al-Harb), who are doomed to the sword; prohibiting “believers” to submit themselves to the rule of the “infidel,” except as a temporary tactic; agreements with “infidels” are provisional, as a prelude to subordinating the “infidel;” emigration of the “believers” must serve the historical, supremacist goal of Islam; and shielding the “believers” from “infidels” may require the Quran-sanctioned Taqiyyah – double talk and deception-based statements and agreements to be ignored, contradicted and abrogated once conditions are ripe.

Selwyn Duke in his column “Islamic influx: Why a Religious Test for Immigrants is Moral and Wise” writes:

People believe in things.

Some of those things are good and true, others are bad and false. And if what people believe is bad and false — whatever water-muddying label it wears — there’s every reason not to vote for them. There also may be good reason not to befriend or hire them, depending on the degree and nature of the badness. There may be reason to keep them out of your home.

And there certainly may be reason to keep them out of your national home.

It should be noted that when Charles Martel saved Europe from a Muslim invasion in 732 A.D. and when the responses to Islamic aggression known as the Crusades were launched in 1095, people understood the above well. In fact, the earliest known uses of the terms “religious” and “secular” were, respectively, 1200 and 1300; even so, they didn’t have their current meanings. “Secular” as in “in reference to humanism and the exclusion of belief in God from matters of ethics and morality,” only dates from 1850.

Thus, during Christendom’s formative years, adolescence and rise to dominance, people did in fact view the world more clearly in the most important sense: they understood that there was simply the true and untrue. Maybe now we can understand why Pope Benedict XVI identified the 13th or 14th century as the West’s high water mark.

Read more.

The ultimate question is: Whom do you trust?

Recent events in Paris and Mali must be viewed in a historical perspective. Islam and the followers of Mohammed have a sacred duty to conquer the non-believers. Remember the Middle East was once a Judeo/Christian paradise of prosperity, trade and peace.

It fundamentally began to change when Mohammed migrated (hijrah) from Mecca to Medina. Thus ends today’s lesson.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Why Does Global Warming Only Turn Muslims Into Terrorists?

More Syrians Stopped at the Border

Barack Obama Blocked 75% of Strikes on ISIS

Al-Qaeda claims Mali slaughter: “All praise is due to Allah”

What’s wrong with this picture?

/in , , , , , /by

Over the past five years of the Saudi-sponsored war in Syria, the United States has admitted a grand total of only 53 Syrian Christian refugees and just one lone Yazidi, despite all the media attention on the Yazidi situation last year.

What’s wrong with this picture?

What shall I tell the Yazidi sheiks when I meet with them in early December?

I will never forget the religious leaders in Lebanon last December saying to me, “We cannot trust the United States government.  You are now bombing ISIS, when two or three years ago, you were arming what is now ISIS?!”

What’s wrong with this picture?

Now our president, while at the G20 Summit in Turkey, in reaction to the Paris multiple-terrorist bombings and carnage, tells the world that we will “stay the course” for victory.  What???

Obama held a press conference in which he said the terror attacks in Paris that left 130, including one American dead, will not change his policy in regards to ISIS, and that he still will not consider American boots on the ground in Syria or Iraq.

Although the Joint Chiefs of Staff would recommend many boots on the ground, seemingly, they are afraid to contradict the “Commander-in-Chief”.

bob armstrong with Iraqi christians

Reverend Armstrong with Iraqi Christians. Photo by Bob Armstrong.

However, former New York City Mayor Rudy Guliani, weighed in on the outrage where every country is against ISIS even more.  Guliani said, “I don’t care about public opinion.  I care about the national security of the United States.  We should have 30,000 or 40,000 troops in Iraq.  If we had had them there consistently, ISIS would never have emerged.”

What’s wrong with this picture?

The French military has bombed more of ISIS strongholds in two days, than the United States has bombed in almost six months! Hello??

What’s wrong with this picture?

According to the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR) 19,000 Syrians have been picked straight from “refugee camps in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan” and given U.N. approval for resettlement in the United States.  However, most Christians are NOT in the United Nations refugee camps because of assaults and rapes by Muslims.  Most Christians are “urban refugees” living in basements of rundown buildings – and worse – in cities.  Virtually all of the 19,000 Syrian “refugees” will be Sunni Muslims who have a hatred for free Western governments.

What’s wrong with this picture?

IMG_0281

Former Iraqi General Georges Sada (right) with Reverend Bob Armstrong. Photo courtesy of Bob Armstrong.

According to former Iraqi General Georges Sada, head of Saddam’s Air Force and then a consultant to former President George W. Bush (and even now a consultant to the current Iraqi government on a daily basis) he knew a month ago that President Obama would send a few troops in to fight ISIS, “ONLY because Russia has taken the lead in the region!”  I had the privilege of having a private lunch with him.

Although he does not speak to many American audiences, except the United States War College, he reveals that Americans really do not want to hear the truth!  He states, “America’s best supposed ‘allies’ in the Middle East are:  Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey.  Yet these three countries provide over three-fourths of the money to fund worldwide terrorism!”

What’s wrong with this picture?

The United States is giving BILLIONS of dollars to bonafide terrorists in Iran as a part of the supposed “Iran Nuclear Deal” even while Iran gathers and chants “DEATH TO AMERICA!”

What is wrong with this picture?

Then there are the arguments for and against immigration.  Yes, I am for legal immigration.  Yes, I am for protecting our borders with a wall or whatever is required.  Our 21,444 U. S. Border Patrol agents need our support and backing, regardless of the inaction by our government in reference to enforcement.

I am against illegal immigrants who disobey our laws to gain access to America, regardless of their color or creed or culture.  How can I teach my child to obey laws, if the United States government turns a blind eye to people who are disobeying the laws.  (Of course we cannot deport 12 million people.  How ludicrous!)  But something must be done to STOP the illegal flow!

What about a future attack on the United States?  A new Islamic State video is pointing toward New York City as a terrorist target.  The New York Post reports:  “The images of New York City are spliced between disturbing clips of suicide bombers preparing for attacks.  A fighter also holds a grenade, pulling the trigger as the camera cuts to black.  French President Francois Hollande then appears on screen, giving an address just after the Paris attacks.  At the end of his speech, he says, “It’s horrible!”  Then words flash on the screen, saying, “And what’s coming next will be far worse and more bitter.”

Obviously, the United States of America is in the “crosshairs” of a future attack by ISIS.

Breitbart News reports: “Two federal agents operating under the umbrella of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are claiming that eight Syrian illegal aliens attempted to enter Texas from Mexico in the Laredo Sector.

A local president of the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) confirmed that Laredo Border Patrol agents have been officially contacting the organization with concerns over reports from other federal agents about Syrians illegally enter the country in the Laredo Sector.  The sources claimed that eight Syrians were apprehended on Monday, November 16, 2015.

Honduran officials have arrested five Syrians who intended to go to the United States with stolen Greek passports.

On and on, the stories continued to multiply.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Our current administration is like a “Trojan Horse” in assisting Terrorism and radical Islam to make it to the shores of the United States of America.  Islam is on the verge of accomplishing in half a dozen years what the Ottoman Empire could not do in 600 years – conquer Europe!  Our own U. S. President supports the Muslim Brotherhood!

“But Muslims are peace-loving!” contends many people, even former President George W. Bush.  I understand there are those who do love peace and their peaceful way of life in America, but if one were to thoroughly read the Qur’an, and act upon every part, there is really no such thing as a “peace-loving” Muslim.

Most Islamists do not understand that their “cult” is disguised as a religion as they “worship” this false god called “Allah” who directs them to torture and kill anyone who does not submit.  They even convince many that Allah and God are one in the same!

President Obama and “wanna-be president” Hillary Clinton both continue to defend radical Muslims.  But Islam is for sure tied to every ISIS attack.

Just in the last few hours, in Mali, Islamic Jihadists released a number of the hostages unharmed after they proved that they were Muslims by reciting, for the jihadis, verses of the Qur’an.

In the 2008 Mumbai, India terror attacks, the Islamic terrorists from Pakistan released a number of hostages from the hotel.  They did this when the hostages in question proved that they were Muslims by reciting passages from the Qur’an.

A little-known fact is during the Mumbai attacks, a Muslim Labour MP who was in the hotel at the time of the attack was allowed to leave unharmed by the Islamic Pakistani terrorists.  He never gave any interviews about his experiences but seems to have withdrawn to the margins of obscurity in British politics.  Maybe one day France and Great Britain will have a Muslim majority electorate.  Dear Lord, help us!  A well-known Muslim told me: “We do not need to fire a shot to win control.  France and England allow Muslims to practice their religion of having four wives.  Considering all the children, one day we will be in the majority in France and England.”  Wow.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Much has been said on social media about the refugees who drowned in the Mediterranean, but no one is forcing these people onto unsafe boats.  They all do so willingly.  President Obama wants to bring 10,000 Syrian refuges (how many are terrorists?) into the United States.  However, the number of refugees welcomed by Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Libya, Egypt, Qatar, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, etc. is ABSOLUTELY ZERO!!

What’s wrong with this picture?

With the backdrop of the Paris terrorist attacks, which left 130 dead including one American, President Obama wants to continue our no-win policy against ISIS.  Former GOP House Majority Leader Tom DeLay urges: “The president in his press conference, what I saw was he all but surrendered.  He has surrendered to ISIS!  We have a president that’s feckless, that’s incompetent, that has no idea what he is doing.  His worldview is the wrong worldview for a war president and Congress has to say it. Congress has to stand up.”

The recent anti-Immigration of Syrians bill voted on this past week had nearly 50 Democrats joining the Republicans, but it falls far short of solving the problem.  After this past week’s vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid vowed to kill the bill even though it received overwhelming bipartisan support in the House.

In another immigration bill, President Obama is vowing to veto the bill which would increase the screening for Syrian and Iraqi refugees before they enter the United States.  The bill would add FBI background checks.  Despite the European terror attacks, President Obama simply does not “get it.”

This invasion of America, which is called immigration, is the biggest threat to your personal safety of our generation.  In fact, even before the immigration crisis of the last four months, we faced the biggest immigration crisis since World War II.  But this could lead to the “Trojan Horse” of terrorism in the USA!

What is wrong with this picture?

Most Americans understand there may be a major terrorist attack in the United States.

The Washington Post – ABC News survey, finds an unbelievable 83 percent of registered voters believe a terrorist attack in the United States resulting in large casualties is likely in the near future.  Forty percent say a major attack is “very likely,” matching the level of concern after the 2005 subway bombings in Britain.

Get this, in spite of what our President says, the survey shows that 59 percent think “The United States is at war with radical Islam.”  YET, President Obama and presidential candidate Clinton refuse to use that term as the enemy!

In spite of all the worldwide carnage and the terrorism finger pointed directly at the United States of America, our “Commander in Chief” is hell-bent on making “Gun Control” his legacy in his last year in office.  I am reminded of Ronald Reagan’s advice: “Self-defense is not only our right; it is our duty.”

Please don’t be sucked into the potent videos children being killed by guns.  Bad people will always somehow have access to weapons.  Americans must cling to their Second Amendment rights:  To defend themselves and their families.

It is against this dismal backdrop that I plan on meeting the enemy head-on in December for three weeks.

If you will recall the daily news last August, 2014 about the Iraqi people who were surrounded by ISIS on a mountaintop, the Yazidis.  One-half of the men women and children were slaughtered by ISIS (5,000).  The USA dropped from the air food, water and blankets, while the Kurds finally rescued the other half.  Genocide, on a smaller scale, still continues in that region.  I plan to spend one week in December with them:  giving them food, encouraging them, and showing them the love of Christ.  Yes, it is still considered a “war zone.”

In fact a Kurd offensive was begun earlier this week, as first reported by CNN to rid Sinjar of the 300 ISIS fighters.  U. S. Coalition forces bombed strategic regions near there this past week!  But my “insiders” tell me they will be rid of by the time I get there! Pray the Kurds eliminate ALL the IEDs!    I will be a couple of miles from ISIS territories and within six miles where Turkey last month – and yesterday – bombed the PKK of the Kurds.

Even though God nudged me to do this, and I will be safe because of Him, for three days I will have five armed bodyguards of the Assyrian Christian “Special Forces”.  Confidentially, the Nineveh Plains Protection Unit!

In addition, I will spend the day at a special home for 30 Yazidi women where they have been brutally raped by ISIS (and their husbands killed by ISIS)!  I need divine guidance on how to encourage these dear women who have sacrificed ALL. It is like a Rehab Center “on steroids.”

Then the second and third week I will be in Iraq, Jordan, and near the Syrian border in Lebanon, partnering with my good friend, Bill Murray, in the Religious Freedom Coalition’s program “Christmas for Refugees.”  Thousands of refugee children will be fed, and their parents will receive food for a week for the entire family, as well as a Bible in their own language.

Last year, I was within 100 yards of ISIS tents; and several Muslims came to know Christ. An ISIS sympathizer infiltrated the church.  As a result, according to General Georges Sada, former Iraqi general and present consultant with the Iraqi government on a daily basis, he informed me that I have a $300,000 kidnapping bounty on my head by ISIS, if I came to Baghdad region of Iraq!!

I am not “crying wolf” now.  This trip is extremely serious…even one of a kind.  NO ONE is reaching the Yazidis except a couple of my new friends!  I will be within a few miles where the United States just this weekend sent Special Forces into Syria.  Russia’s presence is already enormous in Syria!

What is wrong with this picture?

EDITOR’S NOTE:  Bob Armstrong needs to raise $10,000 before December 3rd for his security-conscience Middle East trip to feed Yazidis and refugee children.  If you can assist, financially, thank you.  All gifts to Lovelink Ministries are tax-deductible.

Readers who wish may give by check. Please email Bob Armstrong at:  bobkimandb@gmail.com. To give online, go to www.LovelinkMinistries.com

VIDEO: Muslim migration or Islamic invasion?

/in , , , , , /by

Jihad Watch‘s Robert Spencer addresses contentious Muslim migration issues of today. He believes that this is a Hijrah, a jihadist invasion of the West, not a migration as the media likes to interpret it.

The Encyclopedia Britannica defines Hijrah as:

Hijrah, also spelled Hejira or Hijra (“Flight” or “Emigration”), Latin Hegira, the Prophet Muhammad’s migration (622 ce) from Mecca to Medina in order to escape persecution. The date represents the starting point of the Muslim era.

There are Muslim Jihadis both in Europe and on the way to America.

Map Of Radical Mosques in the U.S. According to the Clarion Project

These mosques or their leading clerics have radicalized attendees to become terrorists, supported terrorist organizations, made radical Islamist remarks or hosted others that have, or are financially backed by radical individuals or organizations.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Donald Trump Sets Off a Furor With Call to Register Muslims in the U.S.

President Obama rejects Intelligence reports on known Islamic terrorists

Muslim Migrants Are Killing Christian Migrants

Barack Obama Blocked 75% of Strikes on the Islamic State

EDITORS NOTE: This video is courtesy of DemoCast.tv.

Vetting Needed to Separate Friend from Foe Among Refugees

/in , , , /by

The Obama Administration is adamant the 10,000 Syrian refugees it plans to resettle in the U.S. are subject to a tough vetting process. The process is tough and long, but a poll in 2014 found that 13 percent have positive feelings towards ISIS. An ideological vetting process that can separate Islamist from non-Islamist is needed to separate valuable friends from deadly foes.

The vetting process should not just rely on criminal records and databases used to detect terrorists and their associates. Because the threat is ideological in nature, it is very possible we could allow in someone with a radical outlook but has yet to establish the kind of operational connections that would show up in a database.

A new bipartisan congressional terrorism report found there isn’t a global comprehensive database of foreign jihadists who have gone to Syria to fight. It says the U.S. doesn’t even have a national strategy against terrorist travel and “information about foreign fighters is crossing borders less quickly than the extremists themselves.” There’s also the serious problem that there is a more general lack of intelligence about Syria.

Watch Clarion Project National Security Analyst Ryan Mauro and retired INS agent Michael Cutler, who gave testimony to the 9/11 Commission, discuss the vetting process for Syrian refugees:

The U.S. has a vetting process of 18 to 24 months. About 1,800 have come to the U.S. in the past two years and a little bit more than half passed the vetting. Names are checked against databases and there’s an interviewing process to make sure there isn’t information linking them to terrorist or criminal activity and that the biography they provided is truthful.

No news reports or explanations by the administration indicate the process includes evaluating the outlook of the applicant to find signs of Islamist sympathies, anti-American views or other forms of extremism like anti-Semitism.

An ideology-based screening process separating Islamists from non-Islamists (as opposed to simply terrorist from non-terrorist) minimizes the chances of a radical getting through and maximizes the chances of identifying an ally to work with. It is not in our interest or in the Syrians’ interest for an Islamist to take a moderate’s place in line.

By failing to identify anti-Islamist friends among the Syrian refugees, we are hurting our cause and losing a chance to undermine the Islamist extremist cause. For example, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American-Islamic Forum for Democracy, is a powerful voice against Islamism. He is in the U.S. doing his work because his parents sought refuge in America from the Assad regime.

The U.S. needs Muslim activists like Jasser. We need fluent Arabic speakers and those who understand that part of the world. We need voices who can speak first-hand about the horrors of ISIS, other Syrian Islamists and the Iran-backed Assad dictatorship. We need Muslims who are on the lookout for extremism and will not hesitate to report it and even keep tabs on it. These are roles that Syrian refugees who oppose Islamism can help fill.

The debate over the administration’s desire to bring 10,000 refugees into America is fierce and contentious, but a middle ground exists between an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees and trusting the current plan.

ABOUT RYAN MAURO

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Three Reactions ISIS is Hoping We Will Have

32 Killed in Nigeria in Suspected Boko Haram Attack

Europe on High Alert as Police Kill Terror Suspects in Paris

Paris: Radicalizing the Next Generation of Muslim Youth

Obama: ‘WE’ The Muslims! [Video]

/in , , , /by

Obama referred to himself as part of the “Muslim Community” at the G20 meeting in Turkey!

What took so long?

RELATED ARTICLES:

In Wake of Paris Attacks, Here’s a Map of the States Shutting Their Doors to Syrian Refugees

After Paris, Obama’s Abandonment of Leadership

What Congress Can Do to Stop Obama From Resettling Refugees

ISIS Just Named D.C. As Possible Target for Terrorist Attacks. Has the Risk Increased?

Syrians entering U.S. in first six weeks of 2016 fiscal year; 98% Sunni Muslim

In first six weeks of FY2016 we resettled 827 Somalis; all but one are Muslim

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of President Barack Obama speaking at the G-20 meeting in Turkey. Photo courtesy of Fox News.

Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau, Please consider our grave concerns

/in , , , , /by

TO: The Right Honourable Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

Cc. The Honourable John McCallum, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, The Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety, The Honourable Jane Philpott, Minister of Health, The Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of Environment and Climate Change-

Dear Prime Minister Justin Trudeau,

Your election promise to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees into Canada by the end of 2015 may not be attainable, and no decent, security-loving Canadian will be upset – in fact we will all understand – if you need to postpone this laudable goal to help the truly downtrodden, by supporting them with food, medications, education and other infrastructure systems – in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan.

We all understand how impossible it is properly to screen for health and security – such a vast population within an unrealistic and overly-ambitious time-frame. You will not lose face with your electorate if you revise your stated “election goal”, notably based on Friday’s atrocities in Paris, that included at least one bogus Syrian refugee terrorist-murderer, who arrived – with a Syrian passport – via Greece.

EVEN ONE BOGUS REFUGEE – a jihadist – is a formidable and horrific danger to the health and safety of Canadians. Improperly screened, we may very likely experience horrific terror issues in short order, making the murders of Nathan Cerillo (22 October, 2014) and Patrice Vincent (20 October, 2014) look mild by comparison.

PLEASE KEEP US SAFE IN CANADA.

Unscreened refugees to Germany are bringing with them whooping cough, chicken pox, measles, syphilis, gonorrhea, and other diseases that compromise health and safety systems to the disadvantage of all.

We must be fully prepared in Canada to help every refugee as required, so that they properly and realistically settle and integrate into Canadian society in a comfortable, safe and secure way for all concerned – both in the short- and longer terms.

25,000 represents but a small fraction of people who are suffering from the war in Syria and its attendant displacement. We could help many more than this number if, instead of trying to wade through a bureaucratic and logistical quagmire on both sides of the ocean, we increased our humanitarian aid and helped to set up schools and hospitals in the refugee camps where these people are now located. Surely if you do pull out our current aerial campaign, that money alone could be redirected toward on-the-ground assistance without having to move a huge population into our cities?

We already have affordable housing issues in Ottawa and elsewhere, First Nations residents still living in squalor, and a dreadful homeless problem of our own – that has gone on for decades. Surely it is time to attend to our own, before looking to add severely to our problems on the ground.
From a strictly practical point of view, even if we bring in a few thousand refugees, there are literally hundreds of thousands more who are in dire need of help, especially with winter coming. It makes more sense to help as many as we can where they are instead of bringing only a relatively small number here.

And if we are to bring in refugees, we must first bring in Yazidis, Coptic and Chaldean Christians from Egypt, Kurds and others who are truly under siege and being savagely butchered, such as those women and children in Sinjar, Iraq. They are even refused entry into the very refugee camps that will give them some “measure of safety”. They are also refused applications as refugees by the Shia and Sunni who control their regions. It is these particular groups who most need our protection at this time.

Please reassure all very concerned Canadians that you have our health, safety and security of paramount concern.

 

The GOP Debate: Missing the Banana Boat on Immigration

/in , , , , , /by

It’s a tragic fact of man’s nature that people prescribe an ounce of prevention when a pound of cure is needed — and a pound of cure when times call for a ton of desperate measures.

Immigration, rightly and largely thanks to Donald Trump, has become a big issue this election cycle.

But not big enough.

And Tuesday’s GOP debate was illustrative of the problem. When John “Can’t do” Kasich and Jeb “Invasion is an act of love” Bush both scoffed at the idea of following the law, saying we “can’t” deport illegals, the response was lacking. Only Senator Ted Cruz rode in to save the issue from their demagoguery. He said it was “offensive” to suggest that enforcing the law is anti-immigrant and warned that the Republicans will lose if they “join Democrats as the party of amnesty.” He also quite eloquently pointed out that the media wouldn’t be suppressing the dark reality of illegal migration if “a bunch of people with journalism degrees were coming over and driving down the wages in the press,” and that there’s nothing compassionate about diminishing millions of Americans’ earnings.

Yet even the intelligent, staunchly traditionalist Cruz misses the boat on immigration. Even the intrepid, titillatingly anti-establishment Trump does. In 2013, Cruz proposed (at 3:28 in this video) increasing H1B visas 500 percent and doubling legal immigration. And Trump repeats the theme that immigration must be done “legally.” The problem?

Americans are “legally” being done out of their jobs. They’re “legally” being pushed into socialism. And they’re “legally” having their culture stolen away. Yet much more than this went unmentioned during Tuesday’s debate.

“Think about the families!” cried Kasich, alluding to family unification. “C’mon, folks!” Okay, c’mon, let’s think about families.

The families argument is pure propaganda. Families can also be united by sending people the other way — back to their native countries, where most family members often are in the first place. Second, the families argument could be used as a pretext for not enforcing any law. Why imprison people for bank robbery or embezzlement? If they have children, the kids will be left without a parent, or even parentless and have to languish in foster care. And as with illegals, many other law-breakers engage in their crimes “because they want a better life.” How many mafia figures didn’t use their ill-gotten gains to support their families?

Moreover, failure to enforce immigration law is discriminatory. If such law can be flouted with impunity, why should any of us have to follow the law? The amnesty crowd are essentially creating a privileged group — illegal migrants — who alone will get a pass on their criminality. Is unfair discrimination compassionate?

Kasich also trumpeted Ronald Reagan’s 1986 amnesty and said the idea of deporting “11 million people who are law-abiding…is not an adult argument.” But is this a mature statement? The illegals by definition aren’t “law-abiding” because they broke the law in coming to the U.S. in the first place. Here’s something else unmentioned: Reagan reportedly called the 1986 amnesty “My biggest mistake.”

And Kasich, Bush, “Gang of Eight” Marco Rubio and others think we should repeat it.

Note that since the ’86 mistake there have been six more amnesties, each one attended by promises to secure the border. It’s said, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” Should we play the fool an eighth time? Are we Charlie Brown with the football?

Transitioning to political footballs, there’s the Kasich-Bush-Insane notion that we “can’t deport 11 million people.” Here’s the ideal debate response:

Well, we certainly can’t if we look to make not good policy but excuses. But despite what “Can’t do” Kasich might say this isn’t a matter of capability but will. But first realize that we don’t have to deport illegals — we can get them to deport themselves.

You use a carrot-and-stick approach; the removal of the carrot and application of the stick. First make sure illegals can’t get any government benefits; of course, this includes no driver’s licenses, which can enable illegals to vote in our elections. Then ensure they can’t get jobs by punishing employers hiring them. Once these incentives to remain are gone, most will leave voluntarily, as Arizona’s crackdown on illegals some years back proved. And once most depart, deporting the few remaining will be an easy task. So the issue isn’t complicated; it’s only made so by pandering politicians who put votes ahead of country.

Speaking of a treasonous spirit, the topic of H1B visas — which allow employers to recruit high-skilled foreign workers — came up during the second-to-last GOP debate on Oct. 28. Once again, no candidate fielded it sufficiently. Ideal debate statement:

In the news there has been story after story recently about corporations replacing high-skilled American workers with lower-wage foreigners; this is a violation of the law, which stipulates that an H1B-visa recruit can only be retained if it “will not affect the working conditions of workers similarly employed,” but this law is routinely flouted and unenforced. Outrageously and rubbing salt in the wound, in some cases these Americans have even been forced to train their foreign replacements under threat of losing their severance packages! This is treasonous! And think about the families, the families that these Americans can no longer support. Is this compassionate? Is this an “act of love”?

The H1B-visa program is being abused, and is used to abuse Americans, by crony capitalists in and out of government who grease each other’s palms. This will stop, cold, under my presidency. More than 94 million Americans are not in the labor force. We need to ensure that corporations hire available American talent. Let high-skilled foreigners build up their foreign countries, and let high-skilled Americans have the jobs that are their birthright.

Returning to Tuesday’s debate, many candidates mentioned Islamic terrorism when asked to cite America’s biggest current threat. Yet not a single debater pointed out the following. Debate statement:

With many millions of unknown-quantity illegals violating our border during the last couple of decades, probability dictates that some terrorists have come across. There’s no doubt that some weapons of mass destruction have come across. Yet we can’t get it across to our feckless leaders that it’s silly, in the extreme, to talk about a “war on terror” and pursue “nation building” in faraway lands while leaving our back door to Mexico vulnerable. It’s a bit like going to the nearest crime-ridden naked-city street looking to be Charles Bronson in Death Wish and leaving your home’s door wide open on your way out. And think about the families on 9/11 and those on the next 9/11, whose loved ones will have been sacrificed on the altar of political pandering. Leaving your national family’s door open isn’t an act of love. It’s criminal negligence and an act of treason.

Having said all this, none of the above addresses our main “legal” problem: legal immigration. Since the Immigration Reform and Nationality Act of 1965, 85 percent of our immigrants have hailed from the Third World and Asia; 70 to 90 percent of those vote for socialistic candidates upon being naturalized. This is a universal Western phenomenon, mind you, and was actually referenced by Labour Party operative Andrew Neather. A former aide to ex-British prime minister Tony Blair, he admitted in 2009 that the massive immigration into the United Kingdom over the last 15 years was designed to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”

Yet such schemes wouldn’t be possible had Westerners, including conservative ones, not fallen victim to “immigrationism”: the idea that immigration is always good, always necessary and must be unquestioned. The reality?

Immigration always presents problems of assimilation. It’s just a matter of whether the likelihood of it is great or virtually nil.

As to the latter, a recent poll showed that a majority of Muslims in America prefer Sharia law to American civil law. Note also the studies showing that young Muslims in the West are actually more Islamic and anti-Western than their elders.

In addition, note that amnesty duly passed into law would be as “legal” as our widely accepted legal immigration. Legal is not synonymous with smart.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

France bombs the Islamic State — so what did that accomplish?

/in , , , , /by

The French, in response to the 132 plus slaughtered French and foreign nationals killed by Muslims in Paris on Friday loaded up very expensive bombs under their beautifully washed and waxed fighter jets for retaliation today. Time for a feel good raid with no planning or mission objective. Just drop some bombs.

The French in their infinite wisdom have been bombing Islamic State positions in Iraq and Syria for months as part of a U.S.-led operation. Why? Which side do we pick in a civil war? The side of the moderate or the side of the extreme Muslim?

I say we let them kill each other and offer sanctuary to the Christians. We can watch the great battle from Google earth.

Unlike westerners, Muslims embrace death and are honored to die as a martyr. So these attacks on Muslims solve nothing. They blow themselves up and they don’t care if a French bomb kills them. For every Muslim killed two dozen more are ready to fill in the hole. When you stomp on an ant pile the ants remove their dead and build another mound.

Using $150,000 bombs to blow up $50 tents is not the long term strategic answer to solving this problem in Syria or the Middle East. Besides, the U.S. Constitution does not permit a U.S. led operation in Syria….zero authority.

Obama is using the Patriot Act to put boots on the ground in Syria. The Secretary of the Air Force let it slip that a ground invasion is the only solution. A total by-pass of our irrelevant and impotent Congress. Why are we still paying these people a salary anyway? They do nothing.

Following Friday’s mass slaughter by Muslims using weapons banned in some U.S. cities, the disarmed French citizens, unable to defend themselves, where totally helpless and totally dependent on the French government for protection and were thus massacred. The blood still wet on the streets. You can’t shoot back with iPhones and BIC lighters.

Not to be left with their pants down around their ankles the liberal, weak spineless French- Paris powder puff leadership vowed to destroy the Islamic State. The question is what group is the Islamic State?

Underlining its resolve, French jets on Sunday launched their biggest raids in Syria to date, hitting its stronghold in Raqqa. How sweet is that? Muslims don’t have factories to produce weapons so what was bombed?

“The raid … including 10 fighter jets, was launched simultaneously from the United Arab Emirates and Jordan. Twenty bombs were dropped,” the Defense Ministry said. Among the targets were a munitions depot and training camp, it said. Yippe, 20 bombs at a cost to the French tax payer of how much money 3 million plus Euros not including the fuel and pilots hazardous duty pay ?

Who was killed ? What was achieved ? Nothing.

Why are the Saudi’s and the UAE not sending in fighter jets to fight this Muslim problem? The Syrian civil war is not a French problem….these Muslims are not our problem. This is a Muslim problem. We must focus inward. The problems we face in this nation are roosting in the White House coordinating the downfall and destruction of capitalism and freedom from within our own borders.

We have no business in Syria or the Middle East fighting anyone. Syria is a sovereign nation and Assad is a capitalist and secular leader who has reformed his country. His efforts over the years have changed things especially in the regulatory environment and in the financial sectors, including the introduction of private banks and the opening of the Damascus Securities Exchange in March 2009. He wants his people to prosper.

He wants to do business with the United States.

When I was in the U.S. Navy we ensured all sea lanes where kept open in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. I served in this neck of the woods. Syria is the only significant crude oil producing country in the Eastern Mediterranean region. We should be doing business with Syria not bombing it. Obama is more interested in insuring chaos in the region continues and the French follow along.

Syria has its civil war and they will solve it. When we stick our nose into the camels tent we will receive Muslim reprisals. We should be securing our own borders not Syria’s.

The Russians are more than capable of offering aid to its Syrian ally. If we wish to defeat the Islamic State we must start by cutting off all trade with Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is an oil-based economy with oppressive government controls over major economic activities and its people. They behead and stone people to death in public. Not a nice country.

Saudi Arabia controls about 16% of the world’s proven petroleum reserves, ranks as the largest exporter of petroleum, and plays a leading role in OPEC. OPEC controls the price of a gallon of gas in downtown Meridian Mississippi, think about that. Iran gets it refined petroleum from whom? Saudi Arabia.

The petroleum sector in Saudi Arabia accounts for 80% of budget revenues, 45% of GDP, and 90% of export earnings. So lets CUT OFF the trade and starve them of capital. Saudi Arabia has the 19th largest economy in the world by nominal gross domestic product (GDP) at $745.273 billion and 11th by purchasing power parity (PPP) at $906.8 billion.

Saudi Arabia publicly does not support ISIS and the Sheiks consider it a threat to their security but social media fundraising campaigns in this nation are sending hard cash and capital from Saudi Arabia to Syria.

To ensure that their contributions actually reach Syria, Saudi donors are encouraged to send their money first to Kuwait, which has long been considered one of the most easy going laid back friendly terrorism financing environments in the Persian Gulf.

Ladies and gentleman. We liberated Kuwait in 1991 now they repay us by funding ISIS in Syria with donations from Saudi Arabia. Kuwait still owe us billions of dollars from tax payer incurred costs in Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm in 1990 – 1991. Saudi Arabia is the root of the problem. Who flew planes into the World Trade Center ? Saudi’s. Who funded 9/11 ? Saudi Arabia.

Twenty-five years ago we booted Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait when in fact this job should have been left to Saudi Arabia. We did not interfere with the Iraq – Iran 8 year war.

Today, Saudi citizens continue to represent a significant funding source for Sunni groups operating in Syria. Arab Gulf donors as a whole — of which Saudis are believed to be the most charitable — they have funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Syria in recent years, including to the Islamic State and other groups.

Although Saudi donors and other private contributors were believed to be the most significant funding source for the original forerunner to ISIS, the importance of such donations has been marginalized by the group’s independent sources of income.

Dropping 20 French bombs on a $400 training camp in Syria will not defeat the Islamic State it will only ensure more attacks on weak soft western targets in countries open borders like in Europe and our southern flank bordering Mexico.

The long term strategic, operational and tactical way to defeat the Islamic State is to stop buying oil from Saudi Arabia, reinforce Israel’s military, shut down the flow of oil from Iran out of the Persian Gulf and to secure our borders.

We have enough oil in the United States to sustain our energy needs. We must stop bombing and start thinking. Our nation cannot continue to borrow money from Communist China to buy bombs to drop on Syria and hope to win anything. Our military must be rebuilt with our next President and this will cost money. Stop wasting it.

We must dig deeper and think further ahead. How does the Islamic State operate? How can Muslims travel so freely across Europe? Why do they have an endless supply of cash? Who is funding them? Sort through it without firing a shot. All eyes on Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Do something useful get involved with Act For America (Brigitte Gabrielle) and help set up a chapter in your town to educate and assist in the issues affecting the current issues facing us. Get involved locally.

The only bombs needed to end world terrorism would be a tactical nuke on Mecca during the Haj and on Tehran any time. But that would take a leader. Iran got only one thing right in its history… In 546 BC, Croesus of Lydia was defeated and captured by the Persians (Iranians), who then adopted gold as the main metal for their coins.

Hang in there Patriots I can see November 2016 from my back porch.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Jihadi in the White House

Who Is Next? Countries That Are On ISIS’s Hit List

ISIS releases ‘Kill List’: Seven Texas cities included

Angry about Paris? Time for a moratorium on Muslim migration to America?

/in , , , , /by

Mark Steyn said the “M” word (actually both of them!)—Moratorium and Muslim just a few minutes ago on Fox News (here).

We all know why Europe and France specifically are in the horrible place they are in now (being invaded and attacked from within) and it is because they have long “welcomed” Islamic Shariah-loving migrants to live among them.

Eleanor Acer of Human Rights First is lobbying Congress at this very minute to add a billion dollars to federal funding for MORE Syrian refugees to be admitted to the US! A billion dollars would nearly double what the Obama Administration is asking for.

So how do we get that MORATORIUM?

Eleanor Acer

You can get it by starting with the Muslim migration occurring through the Refugee Admissions Program between now and December 11th when Congress must vote on the funding for the program for 2016.

I was in Washington this week to brief Hill staffers along with Don Barnett (a Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies) at the invitation of ACT for America about the UN/US State Department refugee resettlement program.  (I am going to post the handout I presented, but Paris has now intervened, will do it over the weekend).

The conclusion from several meetings we had was that—there is only one place at this very minute where you can direct your anger and your hard work—-and that is at Congress (both the House and the Senate) and at the funding for the migration!

Tell them to cut the funding for the US Refugee Admissions Program NOW!

Bills such as Rep. Babin’s and Rep. Michael McCaul’s are a good start for next year, but to really send a message from the American people, make Congress use its POWER OF THE PURSE!

And, btw, the No Borders agitators (like Eleanor Acer in above photo) are busy just this week praising Senators Lindsey Graham and Patrick Leahy who will be seeking to put a billion dollars into the funding package coming up in early December for MORE Syrian refugees!

Call your Members of Congress, your US Senators and all in the leadership—Senator Mitch McConnell (KY is the leading state getting Syrian refugees right now!), Speaker Paul Ryan, and members of all key committees—tell them to cut the money for the US Refugee Admissions Program right now until they can assure America’s security!

And, don’t tell me that that is “unreasonable.” Our job is to tell them what we want and what we want them to do, not to figure out what sounds like a reasonable proposal or to help the squishy ones with their talking points and their images!

***Update*** How could I forget—the powerful Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Charles Grassley, has already called for a halt to funding for the program!

Calling Senator Ted Cruz!

If you are a Senator Cruz fan, this is his chance to show leadership when the Senate takes up 2016 funding very soon.  (Of the Presidential candidates, you know for sure Marco Rubio won’t do it, but maybe Rand Paul will take a leadership role especially since Kentucky is a leading Syrian resettlement state).

END NOTE:  It isn’t just mostly Syrian Muslims entering the US as refugees but thousands are coming from Iraq, Somalia, Burma and Afghanistan to name just a few sending countries.

RELATED ARTICLES:

How Can France Fight ISIS? By Helping Israel

One of the Paris killers was a Syrian refugee who had passed through Greece

Canadian Left all excited by prospect of 25,000 Syrians to arrive before end of THIS year

Carson and Cruz, first Presidential candidates to speak out on Paris slaughter—say no Syrian refugees to America

Calais (France) migrant camp on fire tonight

Watch that horrific video again…..

Syracuse, NY refugee story confirms imported immigrant poverty does not revitalize cities

European civil war?

Sweden ‘pulls up the ladder’ and closes borders

Democrat Candidates: Wide Differences on Islamist Terror by Ryan Mauro

/in , , , , /by

The remaining three Democratic presidential candidates participated in a forum with MSNBC last Friday and it exposed very important divisions within the party about the sources of Islamist terrorism. One side sees it as an ideological battle and the other sees it as a repercussion of Muslim grievances against American policy.

Senator Bernie Sanders described the war with the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) as a battle for the “soul of Islam” whose primary participants must be Muslim. Because he sees it as a Muslim-on-Muslim conflict where the West is caught in the crossfire, Sanders thinks it is counterproductive for the U.S. to take the lead in fighting the Islamic State.

Sanders said he disagrees with President Obama’s decision to send ground troops to Iraq to aid the Iraqi security forces. The U.S. should play a supporting role, he argued, but the surrounding Muslim countries should be the only ones to send in ground forces to fight it out with the Islamic State.

The viewpoint of Sanders about the nature of the war puts him more in line with Clinton than with Martin O’Malley.

“Jihadist groups are governing territory. They will never stay there, though. They are driven to expand. Their raison d’etre is to be against the West, against the Crusaders, against the fill-in-the-blank—and we all fit into one of these categories,” Clinton said in an interview withThe Atlantic in August 2014.

She also said the U.S. needs to have an ideological strategy like it had during the Cold War, when we had “a kind of overarching framework about what we were trying to do that did lead to the defeat of the Soviet Union and the collapse of Communism.”

The difference between her and Sanders is in how to respond to the ideological threat. Clinton is far more interventionist and believes in pro-actively promoting democratic values, whereas Sanders sees the threat as something that is mostly in the hands of the Muslim world to solve.

O’Malley separated himself from the two at the Democratic forum by claiming that military experts have informed him that the two biggest recruiters for Al-Qaeda and ISIS are the presences of U.S. military forces on the ground in the Muslim world and the failure to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp for terrorists.

The statement means that O’Malley sees Islamist terrorism as a byproduct of perceived mistreatment of Muslims by U.S. policymakers. This puts him more in the camp of former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul (whose son, Rand Paul, is currently running) and President Obama. This viewpoint is contradicted by the words of Islamist terrorists like Osama Bin Laden and basic logic.

The three candidates represent three different camps within the Democratic Party: An interventionist view that sees the Islamist threat as ideological (Clinton); a more non-interventionist view that sees the Islamist threat as ideological (Sanders) and a non-interventionist view that blames “blowback” from U.S. policy for sparking the Islamist threat (O’Malley).

Click here to read the Clarion Project’s fact sheets on each presidential candidate’s positions related to Islamism.

ABOUT RYAN MAURO

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.

RELATED ARTICLES:

GOP Debate on Mute About National Security

CAIR Berates Trump for Support of Closing Extremist Mosques

National Security Highlights From First Democratic Debate

Carson Calls on IRS to Terminate CAIR’s Tax-Exempt Status

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Democratic Candidate (L to R): Marin O’Malley, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders

Dr. Ben Carson on the Islamic State: We must ‘destroy them before they destroy us’

/in , , , , /by

“We’re talking about global jihadists, and their desire is to destroy us and to destroy our way of life….our goal is not to contain them but to destroy them before they destroy us.” Why is it so rare to hear presidential candidates make such simple, obvious and commonsensical statements?

“Carson on ISIS: ‘Destroy Their Caliphate,’” by Jordan Schachtel, Breitbart, November 10, 2015 (thanks to Bulldog):

…Carson was asked by Fox Business host and debate moderator Maria Bartiromo if he supports President Obama’s recent initiative to place 50 special ops forces in Syria, and leave 10,000 U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.

“Well, putting the special ops people in there is better than not having them there because they — that’s why they’re called special ops, they’re actually able to guide some of the other things that we’re doing there, and what we have to recognize is that [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is trying to really spread his influence throughout the Middle East,” Carson responded….

“You know the Chinese are there as well as the Russians, and you have all kinds of factions there. What we’ve been doing so far is very ineffective.”…

“But we can’t give up ground right there. We have to look at this on a much more global scale,” Carson said. “We’re talking about global jihadists, and their desire is to destroy us and to destroy our way of life.”…

“So we have to be saying, ‘How do we make them look like losers,’ that’s the way they’re able to gather a lot of influence, and I think in order to make them look like losers, we have to destroy their caliphate,” he stated.

“And you look for the easiest place to do that, it would be in Iraq. Outside of anbar in Iraq there’s a big energy field. Take that from them, take all of that land from them, we could do that, I believe, fairly easily, I’ve learned from talking to several generals, and you move on from there, but you have to continue to face them, because our goal is not to contain them but to destroy them before they destroy us,” Carson concluded.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Al Nusra’s Lion Cubs Religious Academy: “All the Christians and a message to America, your grave is in Syria”

UK Muslims claim to be “negatively affected” by counter-terrorism policies