Posts

Here’s A List Of Cities Hit By Riots In The Last 3 Months

Since late May, numerous cities have faced violent rioting, which has included clashes with police, buildings destroyed by fire, and widespread vandalism.

Minneapolis was the first city to devolve into violence. Peaceful protests followed the May 25 death of George Floyd, who died after former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes. But soon after, peaceful demonstrations gave way to looting, destruction and arson.

The riots were not contained to any specific region in the U.S. and spread quickly to dozens of major American cities, which each experienced varying degrees of violence.

Atlanta: Atlanta was under a state of emergency in early July, with 1,000 National Guard troops activated to protect state buildings following violent riots prompted by the deaths of George Floyd and then of Rayshard Brooks, who was shot and killed by police in Atlanta.

Boston: Riots and looting broke out in Boston following the death of George Floyd in late May and early June, and included police vehicles being set ablaze, according to Boston 25.

Chicago: More than 100 people were arrested and more than a dozen officers injured amid the looting and rioting in Chicago in early August, which targeted high-end stores. Hundreds of people descended on parts of Chicago after officers reportedly shot Latrell Allen, 20, who was accused of having a gun.

Police shot the suspect following a shootout and the man was taken to a hospital. False information circulated on social media regarding the incident, including a claim that the suspect was 15 years old.

Days later, a group of Chicago City Council members requested that Democratic Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker immediately declare a state of emergency in Chicago and deploy the National Guard in light of ongoing rioting and looting in the city. 

Dallas: Numerous businesses were looted and vandalized after peaceful protests in Dallas following the death of George Floyd. Rioters jumped on police cars and began to destroy it, according to Biz Journals. Rioters also slashed tires and broke windows of squad cars.

Denver: Rioters threw fireworks at Denver police officers and started fires after the police shooting of Jacob Blake on Sunday, although riots and protesting had been active for months after the death of George Floyd. At least a dozen people were arrested in Denver Saturday night after rioters vandalized businesses and clashed with police officers. Some rioters set fire to trees and an American flag, while others broke windows and threw fireworks at officers, 9 News reported.

More riots and protests could follow, as Aug. 24 marks the anniversary of Elijah McClain’s arrest, a 23-year-old who died after a deadly encounter with police in 2019.

Detroit: Days after the death of George Floyd, rioters clashed with police in Detroit, throwing small bricks, M-80 fireworks and rocks, while protesters held signs that they wanted police to die, according to Detroit News. Dozens of protesters and rioters, many of them from the suburbs, were arrested.

Houston: Police made 200 arrests in late May during riots and protests. Rioters hurled objects and injured police officers and damaged patrol cars, according to the Houston Chronicle.

Los Angeles: Of the more than 4,400 arrests made at protests and riots in late May, the majority of arrests occurred in Los Angeles, where a special task force was developed to investigate crimes committed during the George Floyd demonstrations. Crimes included attempted murders of officers, looting, burglary, robbery, vandalism, arson and assaults with deadly weapons, according to ABC 7.

Minneapolis: The epicenter of the rioting and the scene of where George Floyd was killed descended into chaos immediately after demonstrations following Floyd’s death May 25. Hundreds of buildings were damaged, many of which were looted, set ablaze and destroyed. The Minneapolis Police’s 3rd Precinct was also destroyed. In St. Paul, more than 50 businesses were vandalized and destroyed.

New York City: Hundreds of people were arrested in early June following riots in New York City, where a curfew was also set after widespread vandalism and attacks on police and businesses. A corporate attorney who graduated from an Ivy League school along with another attorney were accused of throwing a Molotov cocktail at an NYPD vehicle as the violence in New York City escalated into clashes between police and protesters.

Phoenix: More than 300 adults and over 10 minors were arrested in Phoenix on charges of rioting, unlawful assembly, disorderly conduct and curfew violation in early June. Rioters reportedly threw rocks and bottles at police, and the National Guard was activated to aid police, according to KTAR.

Portland: While there were peaceful demonstrations in Portland, the city also became a hotbed for unrest, where the rioters set fire to a police union building in August. At least 13 riots were declared since late May, and the violence has included fires and vandalized property. Rioters then began throwing chunks of ceramic, rocks and glass bottles toward the officers, while others pointed green lasers — which are capable of causing permanent eye damage — at officers. At least one balloon filled with feces was thrown at officers on the roof of the building,

A riot, as defined by the Portland Police, is when six or more people engage in violent behavior and risk causing harm to others, per the same report.

Richmond: Riots gripped Richmond in early June, where a federal courthouse in Richmond, Virginia, was vandalized with a mark indicating it had been designated as a “target for potential vandalism/arson” by antifa, according to an FBI Situational Information Report obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation. Associates of a local anarchist/ANTIFA group were reportedly overheard discussing burning down the Richmond courthouse. Rioters also tried to block a fire truck from reaching a burning building with a child inside in Richmond.

Seattle: Rioting in Seattle began in May immediately after the death of George Floyd. Several cars were set on fire, and businesses were looted or damaged. Incendiary devices including Molotov cocktails were reportedly thrown during the protests, police said according to KING 5. A curfew was set and a civil emergency proclamation was issued. Months later, a half-dozen officers were injured and 18 people were arrested at a Seattle riot after demonstrators hurled explosives at police in August.

St. Louis: Rioters damaged at least one police van in early June and looted local businesses after peaceful protesters earlier the same day in June, and several fireworks were thrown at police officers during riots in St. Louis, according to KSDK. Police reported that 55 buildings had been broken into or looted throughout the day June 1.

Washington, D.C.: Violent rioting in the nation’s capitol included clashes with police, looting, and a fire set at the historic St. John’s Episcopal Church, along with other fires set near the White House. Rioting continued in August, and 41 people were arrested amid Black Lives Matter protests in Washington, D.C. The arrests came as a result of fires set intentionally as well as destroyed property, the 3D watch commander said according to WJLA.

COLUMN BY

MARLO SAFI

Culture reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot Calls Looting, Riots In Chicago ‘Planned Attacks’

‘There’s Just No Words’: Cleanup In Kenosha, Wisconsin, Continues Following Monday Riot

‘He Wants Riots’: Tucker Carlson Rips Wisconsin Governor, AG For Refusing To Say If Jacob Blake Was Armed

Man Pulls Gun On Reporter During Kenosha Riots, Reportedly While Describing What He Would Do To Cops

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

FLORIDA: FBI identifies motive for Pensacola shooting as “jihad”

It is astounding that seventeen years after 9/11 that it would be newsworthy that the FBI called a jihad attack “jihad,” but the denial and willful ignorance have been pandemic, and made into official U.S. policy during the Obama administration. This is a small step back to sanity for the still largely clueless and corrupt FBI. Much more is needed.

“FBI continues investigation into deadly NAS Pensacola shooting, calls motive ‘jihad,’” by Michael Warrick, WALA, January 30, 2020:

PENSACOLA, Fla. (WALA) – Nearly two months after a Saudi national killed three young sailors aboard NAS Pensacola, the FBI says its investigation is “ongoing,” stopping short of disclosing what the shooter was doing in the hours leading up to the tragedy.

The FBI and base commander spoke to reporters Thursday, but declined to answer how Mohammed Alshamrani, got a gun onto the base prior to the shooting. The FBI is working with Apple to look at two phones that were in Alshamrani’s possession.

“We have no evidence that there were any co-conspirators,” FBI Special Agent in Charge, Rachel Rojas said. “However we are still seeking the cooperation of Apple so we can look through the two I-Phones.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Arkansas: Muslim who shot two soldiers claims that as a terrorist, he shouldn’t have been tried in state court

Muslim cleric’s fatwa permits Muslims to celebrate coronavirus spread and pray for “annihilation” of Chinese people

UK: Rotherham Muslims launch “guardian” group after “far-right” distributes leaflets warning about Muslim rape gangs

What appears to be a religious Muslim describes Jesus and Mary in highly offensive terms

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Northeastern University student deported back to Iran over family’s ties to jihad terror groups

“A U.S. official familiar with information reviewed by authorities told CBS News that Dehghani himself does not have ties to terroristic groups, but ‘some very close to him’ do.”

Many in the U.S. think Shabab Dehghani is an innocent victim of official “Islamophobia.” And it is certainly true that no one should be punished for someone else’s misdeeds. At the same time, how can anyone be certain that he doesn’t hold the same views that his family members hold? To how much of a risk is Northeastern University required to expose its students?

“Northeastern Student Was Deported Back To Iran Over Family’s Ties To Terroristic Groups,” CBS, January 22, 2020:

BOSTON (CBS) – Shabab Dehghani, a Northeastern University college student who was detained at Logan Airport and sent back to Iran before an immigration hearing was held, was deported because of his family’s ties to terroristic groups, CBS News reports.

A U.S. official familiar with information reviewed by authorities told CBS News that Dehghani himself does not have ties to terroristic groups, but “some very close to him” do.

Dehghani is studying economics at Northeastern. He’s been studying in Boston for two years, but was stuck at home in Iran in December 2018 after visiting his family as he waited for his student visa to be renewed.

Dehghani’s attorney, Susan Church, told WBZ-TV he was detained starting Sunday night despite having a legal F1 Student Visa, as he tried to get back to school – and said at the time she didn’t know why.

An immigration hearing was scheduled for Tuesday morning, but Dehghani was deported before it began.

Judge Richard Stearns said during the brief hearing that there was nothing he could do because Dehghani had already been deported. Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey tweeted Wednesday that he still hadn’t heard from U.S. Customs and Border Protection about why Dehghani was turned away….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim “refugee” in US pleads guilty to supporting the Islamic State

Cops: Muslim Sex Grooming Gangs “Didn’t Understand That It Was Wrong”

Greek islanders protest against mass migration: “We want our islands back, we want our lives back”

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews likens jihad terror mastermind Soleimani to Princess Diana and Elvis Presley [Video]

Matthews is of course correct, except for the minor detail that when Soleimani covered “Don’t Be Cruel,” he sang “Be Cruel.”

These people’s intense hatred of President Trump has driven them mad.

“Chris Matthews Compares Soleimani to Elvis Presley and Princess Diana,” by Andrew Kugle, Washington Free Beacon, January 8, 2020 (thanks to the Geller Report):

MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews on Wednesday night compared deceased Iranian terror master Qassem Soleimani to Elvis Presley and Princess Diana.

“When some people die, you don’t know what the impact is going to be. When Princess Diana died, for example, there was a huge emotional outpouring,” Matthews said. “Elvis Presley in our culture—it turns out that this general we killed was a beloved hero of the Iranian people to the point where—look at the people, we got pictures up now—these enormous crowds coming out. There’s no American emotion in this case, but there’s a hell of a lot of emotion on the other side.”

Soleimani led the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps which trained, funded, and armed Iran-sympathetic terrorist groups in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and around the Middle East, killing thousands, including hundreds of Americans.

“Should our leaders know what they’re doing when they kill somebody?” Matthews asked Rep. Joaquin Castro (D., Texas).

Castro replied that Trump’s strategy of pulling out of the nuclear deal and putting pressure on Iran has failed.

“They very much could have anticipated that Iranians would react in this way, both the Iranian public but also that the government would strike back,” Castro said. “This speaks to a much larger issue, Chris, which is the president has had a very chaotic and erratic foreign policy, especially with respect to Iran.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Sadiq Khan’s London: Islamic Student Association brands US ‘Terrorist State’ at embassy protests

Hamas-linked CAIR claims “discrimination” over Iranian-Canadian complaints about being detained at US border

Soleimani’s Death a Body Blow to the Islamic Republic

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column with video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

The Democrats Hate ICE Because They Hate Americans

On February 15, 2019, President Donald J. Trump declared a National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States (Proclamation 9844), citing the National Emergencies Act, and ordered the diversion of billions of dollars of funds that had been appropriated to the U.S. Department of Defense for military construction. This construction is ongoing. Watch this video titled DOD lists where it will build new border wall:

According to Wikipedia:

national emergency is a situation in which a government is empowered to perform actions not normally permitted. The 1976 National Emergencies Act implemented various legal requirements regarding emergencies declared by the President of the United States.

Proclamation 9844 states in part:

The current situation at the southern border presents a border security and humanitarian crisis that threatens core national security interests and constitutes a national emergency. The southern border is a major entry point for criminals, gang members, and illicit narcotics. The problem of large-scale unlawful migration through the southern border is long-standing, and despite the executive branch’s exercise of existing statutory authorities, the situation has worsened in certain respects in recent years.

President Trump took this action because Democrats in Congress have:

  1. Failed to recognize that there is a crisis on the Southern border and
  2. Failed to fund the border wall during the normal budgetary process.

The building of a border wall was a campaign promise made by candidate Trump and remains a major goal of the Trump administration.

On December 9th, 2019 the Democrat Congressional Progressive Caucus sent out an email titled “Sign on to cut funding for border detentions.” The email states:

Earleir [sic] this year, The White House declared a phony “national emergency” at the border in an attempt to get funding for his wall.

Then months later, they requested $4.5 BILLION from Congress to fund ICE, expand family detention, and lock up more vulnerable migrants.

Now, they’re trying to get an ADDITIONAL $1.4 billion to double down on their cruel immigration policies!

This is a DISASTER. But thankfully, Progressives around the country are already proposing needed cuts to The White House’s ICE budget.

Are you with us? Please, sign on today to tell Congress to CUT funding for ICE:

The Democrat Congressional Progressive Caucus

What is the Democrat Congressional Progressive Caucus and who are its members?

According to their website:

The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) consists of one United States Senator and seventy eight members of the United States House of Representatives, and is the largest caucus within the House Democratic Caucus.  Established in 1991, the CPC reflects the diversity and strength of the American people and seeks to give voice to the needs and aspirations of all Americans and to build a more just and humane society.

[ … ]

Our Caucus members promote a strong, progressive agenda, what we call “The Progressive Promise–Fairness for All”.  The Progressive Promise is rooted in four core principles that embody national priorities and are consistent with the values, needs and aspirations of all the American people, not just the powerful and the privileged.  They reflect a fundamental belief in government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

The four, core principles of the Progressive Promise:

1. Fighting for economic justice and security for all;
2. Protecting and preserving our civil rights and civil liberties;
3. Promoting global peace and security; and
4. Advancing environmental protection and energy independence

Members of the Democrat Congressional Caucus include Senator Bernie Sanders and all four members of The Squad, made up of Reps. Ilhan Omar (whip), Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

It is the Democrat Congressional Progressive Caucus that is driving the policies and politics of the Democrat Party.

Is there a National Emergency on our Southern Border?

The Democrat Congressional Progressive Caucus, according to their email, truly believes that there is no “national emergency” on our Southern border. They call President Trump’s February 15, 2019 declaration “phony.” Yet the last two Presidents have used this Executive privilage under law to declare a national emergency.

Multiple presidents have declared national emergencies during their terms in office.

Former President Clinton issued 17 national emergency proclamations of which 6 are still current.

Former President George W. Bush declared 13 national emergencies including one after the September 11th, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Former President Barack Obama declare 12 national emergencies during his presidency including one to respond to the “swine flu epidemic in 2009.” President Trump to date has issued 3 national emergency proclamation.

If swine flu is permissible why aren’t the illegal flow of aliens, including the diseases they bring with them, across our borders a crisis?

If 9/11 is permissible why are the terrorist activities of the drug cartels crossing our borders not a crisis?

If even a single American is killed by someone here illegally then why isn’t that a border crisis?

In a TownHall.com column titled Part III: Like in Europe, America’s Broken Asylum System Enables Terrorist Infiltration Over the U.S.-Mexico Border Todd Bensman writes:

New research establishes the extent to which violent Islamic jihadists infiltrated over land borders as a new method to clandestinely reach targets in Europe, a first in contemporary terrorism history. This series explores the implications of Europe’s experience for U.S. border security.

On September 30, 2017, a Somali immigrant who initially had himself smuggled over the Mexico-California border conducted a double vehicle ramming and stabbing attack, carrying an ISIS flag, that left a police officer and four others gravely injured in Edmonton, Alberta.

But Abdulahi Hasan Sharif arguably would never have been present in Canada for his melee had he not been able to claim one of America’s most indulgent and abused immigration benefits: political asylum. Simply asking a U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer at the border for asylum sets in motion a process that guarantees most foreign strangers legal entry into the United States for as long as processing takes, which can amount to years.

Read more.

Conclusion

It is clear that the Democrats care more about illegal aliens than they do about protecting the American people.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

An All-Out Immigration Moratorium, The Left’s Worst Nightmare

House To Vote On Amnesty Bill This Week

Part III: Like in Europe, America’s Broken Asylum System Enables Terrorist Infiltration Over the U.S.-Mexico Border

A New Terror Travel Tactic is Born

New Study Explains Why Islamic Terrorists Have Not Attacked Through America’s Southern Border

Iran on the Brink

Introduction

Uprisings in Iran have become routine occurrences, albeit without much success. Why? Because Iran is ruled by a totalitarian Islamic ideology like Nazism and communism. In Iran, there is no sovereignty of the people. Instead, there is a perception of the Ummah in Shia theology “rule of Mahdi”, guardianship over the people. In other words, Iran belongs to “Imam Zaman” (the Hidden Imam) and in his absence, a supreme leader is in charge. In this case, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Any revolt against the State is considered a direct attack against the upcoming “Lord of the Age “Mahdi.”

Hence, the moment people start protesting, the regime unleashes its wild dogs (soldiers of Mahdi) on a killing spree.  Iranians partook in many protests across the country amidst a failing economic situation, systematic government corruption, and widespread frustration over the lack of political and social freedoms. As always, the regime’s security apparatus reacted to these protests with mass arrests and severe due process abuses. Pundits and experts believe “Khamenei’s tough response could just invite more anger.”

Since the Islamic invasion of 1979, the Mullahs have ruled over the unarmed Iranian people with an iron fist and absolute power while draining the nation’s treasury. As a result, millions of Iranians had no choice but to flee their homes to the four corners of the globe. In these recent protests, Iran’s rulers once again revealed their real identity to the world that they don’t value human life. They are simply vicious killers.

US Sanctions

After the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or Iran nuclear deal on May 18, 2018, the US almost immediately imposed several new sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI).

Following up with another sanction on the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, his office and those who were closely tied to him with access to major financial resources. In July 2019, the United States placed sanctions on the regime’s Foreign Minister Mohammad, Javad Zarif.

The US also placed sanctions on eight senior commanders of the navy, aerospace and ground forces components of the IRGC. In April of 2019, President Donald Trump declared that the United States designated Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a foreign “terrorist” organization.

Results

Within a few months, Iran’s crude oil exports were slashed by almost 80%. Despite massive propaganda from President Rouhani’s office claiming these sanctions did not phase them and they had gotten used to them. However, this dosage of reality hit them hard. The regime is out of money and unable to pay the salaries of their military apparatus as well as its terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthi insurgency in Yemen, Bashar al-Assad of Syria and other hired thugs. By November 2019, the regime was completely financially broke and needed to come up with a solution to save itself.

Out of desperation, the supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei took a gamble and raised the price of gasoline by 50% (some say by 300%) in order to consolidate the budget deficit. And that was precisely what prompted protests in at least five cities almost simultaneously and brought millions of people into the streets. Almost all the slogans were against the Ayatollah Khamenei himself.

Death Toll

On November 15, 2019, over 100 protesters were killed and over a 1000 arrested in just one day. The exact total of casualties since the protests began are unknown, but unofficial reports from inside Iran say around 1000 people died and close to 10,000 were injured or arrested. Out of fear, the regime immediately cut off all communication devices including the Internet to the outside world. They feared of the watchful eyes of the people around the world to witness yet again the Mullahs’ atrocities against the Iranian people who are barely surviving in a country that spends 80% of its oil revenue on terrorism worldwide.

Business as Usual

Without any question, the civilized world is aware that the Islamic Republic is immensely despised by its people, yet, they ignore this and continue doing business as usual. Political analysts and pundits know it is a fact that neither the mullahs nor the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) are going away peacefully. They have no intention of handing over the country to the people anytime soon. Why? Three reasons. First, Iran is a rich country and the Mullahs are naturally greedy thieves. They cannot reconcile with themselves for letting it slip away. Second, they know that Shia Islam would most likely cease to exist. Third, they are mortally afraid that if they let Iran become free, the Iranian people would take their revenge without any mercy upon them. After all, for the past forty years they have committed every crime and atrocity known to man against the Iranian people. Something the late Ayatollah Khomeini had warned them about before his death.

Now What?

The regime is aware that they neither can go back nor forward. They are stuck between a rock and hard place. The only reason they are still in power is because there are greedy and money hungry politicians who will do anything for cheap oil and bribery. I remember the Ayatollah Khamenei’s words on his Friday sermons during the Green Revolution in 2009. He directly ordered his Bassij, plain clothes thugs and IRGC forces to shoot and kill indiscriminately anyone who challenged his Ummah (community of Shia Islam).

In another speech, he openly mentioned that he had learned a valuable lesson from the late Shah of Iran. He said, “He would never relinquish power as easily as the Shah did.” In 1978, I was still in Iran and I know the Shah never personally ordered soldiers to kill people at point-blank range. In fact, he never ordered anyone to be killed.

The Shah was a very kind and sensitive man, despite all the allegations the leftist media have conjured up about him. That is precisely why he departed his beloved country rather than stay and face a bloodbath.

Forty Years of Islamic Terror

For the past forty-years, thousands of dissidents, students, intellectuals and journalists have been systematically arrested, imprisoned and tortured for the sole crime of speaking up against the oppressive rule of the mullahs. Many are still languishing in prisons, some have died, and some have simply vanished with no trace. Not only has the regime terrorized its own people, they have also demonstrated a high priority for supporting global terrorism.

Many Iranians are following the events in Iran carefully. Despite an unprecedented internet shutdown by the regime, the Iranian people have succeeded in providing the world with video evidence of the Mullahs’ brutality. “We see you, we hear you, & as Secretary of State Michael Pompeo stated, the U.S. is with you.”

With the recent Iranian uprising across Iran, the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic is now under serious question. The protests that began two weeks ago in Iran were different from most previous protests. It roiled the country since the onset of its 1979 revolution. These protesters have covered more land, overwhelming small and midsize cities across the country. But they also have reportedly drawn more than 16 million participants in over 100 cities than did the 2009 Green Revolution protests in Tehran.

Conclusion

Are we finally witnessing the end of the Islamic Republic? Yes, but not immediately. It is only a matter of time and not a very long one either.

© All rights reserved.

Elizabeth Warren: Those Settlements ‘Violate International Law and Make Peace Harder to Achieve’ by Hugh Fitzgerald

Elizabeth Warren reacted to Secretary Pompeo’s statement that in the view of the Administration, Israel’s settlements did not violate international law with characteristic swift certainty:

Another blatantly ideological attempt by the Trump administration to distract from its failures in the region. Not only do these settlements violate international law — they make peace harder to achieve. As president, I will reverse this policy and pursue a two-state solution,” Warren said.

Was Pompeo’s announcement merely a cynical attempt to “distract” the public “from its failures in the region”? Surely such an announcement was certain to have exactly the opposite effect – it would focus the media’s attention on the Israelis and Palestinians as it had not been so focussed since the Great March of Return began on March 30, 2018. Every major media outlet – CNN, AP, BBC, Reuters, New York Times, Washington Post – covered Pompeo’s remarks in detail. Those remarks were hardly designed to “distract” from supposed “failures in the region.” And as for those “failures,” what does Warren have in mind? Was the defeat, by the Americans and the Kurds, of ISIS in Syria a “failure”? Was the collapse of ISIS in Iraq, to which American military assistance contributed, a “failure”? Was the body-blow to Iran’s economy, that the Administration brought about by reimposing sanctions, that in turn led to the streets of Iran now being filled with Iranians shouting against the regime, a “failure”? Was cutting off aid to the massively corrupt UNRWA a “failure”? Was cutting off aid to the Palestinian Authority, because of its Pay-for-Slay program, a “failure”?

Warren then blithely noted that the settlements “violate international law.” This was not always her understanding. At a Town Hall in August 2014, Warren called into question the notion that future US aid to Israel should be contingent on the halting of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Clearly she did not then regard the settlements as being “illegal.”

And two years later, in September 2016, ahead of a U.N vote on a resolution condemning Israeli settlements, Warren was one of 88 senators who signed a letter to President Obama sponsored by the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, urging him to “veto any one-sided UNSC resolution that may be offered in the coming months”: the resolution was approved by the Security Council 14-1-0, with the United States shamefully abstaining.

Again, Warren was still willing to urge the government to veto a Security Council resolution that treated the West Bank settlements as “illegal.”

What changed her mind? Perhaps, after Bernie Sanders’s claim that he would take some aid money away from Israel and give it to the Palestinians in Gaza, Warren felt she needed to establish her bona-fides among the “progressives” in the Democratic Party, who have become increasingly anti-Israel. And what better way to do it than to instantly attack Pompeo on the “legality” of Israel’s West Bank settlements?

A law professor for many years, Warren is well-versed in reading statutes and codes. As a professor of bankruptcy law, she can comprehend the Bankruptcy Code, so he Mandate for Palestine ought to be child’s play. If she reads that Mandate, she will understand that the League of Nations established, on a sliver of land that had been identified with the Jewish people for two thousand years, and that had formerly been part of the Ottoman Empire, the Mandate for Palestine. That Palestine Mandate was entrusted to Great Britain, whose task it was to prepare that territory for independence as the Jewish National Home. There were other Mandates that were intended to create Arab states – Syria, Lebanon, Iraq – but the Mandate for Palestine was intended solely for the Jews. Warren would then want to know, as the thorough policy wonk she is, precisely what territory was to be included in that Mandate. Upon investigation, she would discover that the Mandate for Palestine applied to all the territory from Dan in the north to Beersheva in the south, and from the river Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean Sea in the West. In other words, all of what is present day Israel, and the entire West Bank, was included in the Mandate. Israel cannot be called the “occupier” of land that was assigned by the League of Nations to be part of the Jewish National Home, which would then become the State of Israel. When the League of Nations shut down, its successor organization, the United Nations, implicitly recognized in Article 80 of its Charter (the so-called Jewish People’s article) the continuing in force of the Mandate for Palestine. The only thing that prevented the West Bank from becoming, as it legally should have, part of the state of Israel in 1949, was that Jordan managed to hold onto the West Bank, and remained its “occupier” until 1967.

Elizabeth Warren never mentions the Mandate for Palestine, which is the indispensable document in judging the legality of the Israeli settlements. Nor does she mention, in any of her statements online, U.N. Resolution 242 and its significance in giving Israel the right to “secure and recognizable boundaries.” She has a duty to study both the Mandate, and Resolution 242, before making her self-assured and dismissive pronouncements about how those settlements “violate international law.” And she might also explain why those same settlements did not “violate international law” back in 2014, when she opposed making aid to Israel contingent on its halting of settlement building. Did she know something in 2014 about the settlements’ legality that she then forgot, or did she learn something since about their supposed illegality?

Then there is Warren’s remark that the settlements are not only “illegal,” but that they “make peace harder to achieve.” How does she, and the many others who mindlessly repeat this mantra – “settlements make peace harder to achieve” – know this? Because the Arabs – the Palestinians – keep telling them so.

What kind of “peace” is possible between Israel and the Palestinians? Some may insist that by squeezing itself back within the 1949 armistice lines, what Ambassador Abba Eban called “the lines of Auschwitz,” Israel makes peace more likely. But those who recognize that the war being waged, by all possible means, including terrorism, combat (qitaal), economic and diplomatic warfare, and demographic jihad, against Israel has no end, for Muslims, until the complete disappearance of the Jewish state, will not be so quick to put their trust in treaties. That is especially true because the Muslim model for all treaty-making with non-Muslims is the agreement that Muhammad reached with the Meccans at al-Hudaibiyya in 628 A.D., a treaty that was to last for ten years, but which he broke after 18 months, attacking the Meccans as soon as he felt his forces were strong enough to win. Given that Muhammad is the Model of Conduct for all Muslims, Israel cannot rely on a peace treaty with Muslim Arabs to be kept indefinitely.

Instead, there is another and better way to maintain the peace between Israel and its neighbors. That is deterrence: the enemy’s understanding that if Israel is attacked, it will respond, and much more devastatingly. Egypt and Syria now know what they did not know in October 1973, when they launched a surprise attack on Israel. Despite early losses, Israel delivered punishing blows in response. No Arab state since has tried to attack Israel; terror groups are a different matter, for their members are ready to be “martyrs.” For rational actors – fanatic Muslim groups and groupuscules are not among them – deterrence works. It kept the peace between the United States and the Soviet Union for more than four decades after World War II. Israel must remain overwhelmingly, and obviously, stronger than its enemies for deterrence to be effective.

That is where the West Bank settlements come in. The 400,000 Jews who live in the West Bank, with all of the adults having undergone military training when fulfilling their mandatory service in the IDF, are an indispensable part of that deterrence. Those settlements throughout the West Bank, especially those strategically placed on the Judean hills, and overlooking, the Jordan Valley, are a powerful obstacle to invasion from the east. The settlements significantly improve Israel’s deterrence, and a credible deterrence is the only guarantee that peace between Israel and the Arabs will be kept.

Warren claims the settlements will make peace “harder to achieve.” She has things backwards. The settlements may make a “peace treaty” harder to achieve, but they will make the only peace that really matters, a peace based on deterrence, easier to achieve.

In addition to the Mandate for Palestine (especially the Preamble and Articles 4 and 6), and U.N. Resolution 242, Elizabeth Warren should read about the treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya and its continuing significance, in Majid Khadduri’s magisterial War and Peace in the Law of Islam. That’s all the studying she need devote to the matter for now. The exam will be take-home. We’re all hoping that Professor Warren earns an A.

COLUMN BY

Hugh Fitzgerald

RELATED ARTICLES:

Chicago: University students honor Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader

Accusers of Ilhan Omar refuse to provide details on her alleged work for Qatar

Raymond Buckley and the Democrats’ Craven Lust for Power

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Geert Wilders vs. Dutch Prime Minister Rutte on Islam

An illuminating discussion, as the truth meets cherished Leftist assumptions.

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK imam accused of recruiting jihadis to fight for the Islamic State

North Carolina jihadi has “psychological problems that could spiral into full-fledged schizophrenia”

UK: Police Commissioner Suggests Value of Armed Citizenry, is Quickly Rebuffed

Every once in a great while, an independent-minded United Kingdom official is overcome with a bout of common sense on firearms. However, such outbursts of reason are typically short-lived, as the gun control apostate becomes the immediate target of the country’s anti-gun establishment politicians and media. Such was the case in 2014, when former Leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party and Member of the European Parliament Nigel Farage had the temerity to point out that the UK’s handgun ban is “ludicrous” and call for its repeal.

Devon and Cornwall Police and Crime Commissioner Alison Hernandez

Following the recent terror attacks in Manchester and London, Devon and Cornwall Police and Crime Commissioner Alison Hernandez was taken by a similar case of logic. During a June 12 appearance on BBC Radio Cornwall, Hernandez suggested that armed citizens could provide an important response to a terrorist violence.

According to an account and audio of Hernandez’s BBC appearance made available by the Guardian, a caller – who is a firearms dealer — to the radio show asked the police commissioner, “If there should ever be a terrorist attack, what happens if I and other people try to defend themselves using those guns? What would be the repercussions?” After lauding the caller’s question, Hernandez responded that such an armed response “might be some of our solution to our issues.”

The audibly dumbfounded BBC host, called the caller’s proposal “vigilantism,” going on to question the caller’s ability to properly handle and use firearms. Even after the host’s initial derisive comments, Hernandez defended her position stating, “I’m just saying, let’s officially have a look at that and see what would be the implications of it…. We work with businesses to keep our communities safe. I’d really be interested in exploring that with the chief constable.”

Unfortunately, Hernandez’s rational position was lost on Chief Constable Shaun Sawyer and Deputy Chief Constable Paul Netherton. The same day as Hernandez’s interview, Netherton issued a response to the police commissioner’s comments that appears to foreclose even a discussion about the use of private firearms to stop a terrorist threat.

In the release, Netherton noted that during an attack, “highly trained police firearms officers and Special Forces will be deployed to protect our communities,” and that “Under no circumstances would we want members of the public to arm themselves with firearms, not least because officers responding would not know who the offenders were, and quite obviously they would not have the time to ask.”

Netherton also reiterated official UK response policy, stating, “Our message to the public is a simple one: to run, to hide and to tell.” This charge is a noticeably neutered version of the United States Department of Homeland Security’s “Run, Hide, Fight.”

Just as disturbing as the UK’s disrespect of the fundamental right to self-defense is the ongoing effort by the UK’s political and media establishment to preclude any debate on the topic. Nigel Farage’s comments on the handgun ban were met with “fury,” with one opposing lawmaker dismissing Farage’s Ukip party as “extremely dangerous.” The BBC host dismissed Hernandez’s comments and the caller’s question out of hand. Likewise, Netherton released a statement refuting Hernandez’s position without exploration or discussion. Far from radical, Hernandez’s thoughts on fighting terrorism are shared by former Interpol Secretary General Ronald K. Noble.

Such foreclosure of discourse is unbecoming a so-called liberal democracy. Today’s UK would do well to rediscover the great English classical liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill, as his work on the merits of free thought and vigorous discourse appears to be foreign to most of its subjects.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Will the Brits Ever Learn, an Armed Citizenry is a Safe Citizenry

Ex-MI5 boss: People ask, why didn’t you follow all these people … on your radar?

Hezbollah flags fly in London on a Sunday afternoon anti-Israel march

Rep. Steve Scalise Introduces Bill to Relax Restrictions on Interstate Firearm Sales

Qatar – the end of the road?

Analysis: The Saudis and their Arab allies have had enough of Qatar and its media proxy al Jazeera’s behavior. They intend to win this fight.

The Emirate of Qatar is a peninsula that juts out from Saudi Arabia into the Persian Gulf. The only overland route out of Qatar is by way of Saudi Arabia and if that route is blocked, the only way to reach Qatar or leave it is by air or sea. However, flights to and from Qatar pass over Saudi air space part of the time and ships from or to Qatar have to pass through Saudi territorial waters. This means that Saudi Arabia can in effect declare a total blockade on Qatar if it so desires. It has never done so before, but it began the process on June 5th.

In addition to a blockade, the Saudis, joined by the United Emirates, Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, Mauritius, the Philippines and the Maldives, cut off diplomatic and consular relations with Qatar.  Egypt, Libya and the Emirates declared that they would ban Qatari plans and ships from their air space and territorial waters. In 2014, these countries took much milder steps in order to punish Qatar, cancelling them once Qatar agreed to accept the dictates of the Umma and signed the Riyadh agreement along with the rest of the Arab nations.

The reasons provided by the countries involved for the unprecedented severity of the current steps against Qatar included: “Qatar aids the Muslim Brotherhood and other terror organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas, ISIS and Jebhat al-Nusrah” and “The Emir of  Qatar has declared that Iran is a good nation” as well as “Qatar destabilizes our regime,” as well  as ” Qatar provides hiding places and shelter to Muslim Brotherhood leaders who fled there from Egypt,” and “Qatar is giving aid to  the Houthi rebels (read Shiites) in Yemen.”

Another and most subtle reason, whose source is a Kuwaiti commentator, appears on al Jazeera‘s site: “Qatar refused to meet Trump’s financial demands.” This odd remark relates to a rumor on Facebook and other social network sites claiming that before Trump agreed to come to the Riyadh Arab League Conference, he demanded the Gulf Emirates purchase US arms in the legendary sum of one and a half trillion dollars, to be divided among Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Emirates. The three agreed, but Qatar pulled out at the last minute, causing the Emirates to follow suit, and leaving the Saudis holding the bill demanded by Trump.   The falling through of this deal, the largest in history, may have been the reason for Trump’s noticeably grim face in Riyadh.

Claiming that Qatar causes the destabilization of regimes is a veiled hint referring to al Jazeera which broadcasts from Qatar. Every since it began broadcasting in 1996 from the capital city of Qatar, Doha, al Jazeera has infuriated Arab rulers because it constantly carries out a media Jihad against them also aimed at others such as  Israel, the US, the West and Western culture. The channel also promotes and supports the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots such as Hamas, al Qaeda and the Northern Branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel headed by Sheikh Raad Salah. Al Jazeera‘s media strategy is determined by Qatar’s Emir and is carried out down to the last detail by its very professional leading broadcaster and editorial policy setter, Jamal Rian, a Palestinian born in Tul Karem in 1953, who moved to Jordan where he was active in the Muslim Brotherhood until expelled by King Hussein.

Every so often other Arab regimes, chief among them Egypt under Mubarak, attempted to close down al Jazeera‘s offices in their countries after overly harsh criticism was aimed at the ruling government, only to reopen them when al Jazeera simply stepped up its attacks

The general feeling is that any government official – or anyone at all – who opposes a ruling regime (and there is no shortage of these people in any Arab country) leaks embarrassing information to  al Jazeera all the time, so that the channel is always poised to expose the information when the time is ripe and especially if the now-cornered victim has been unfriendly to it and to Islamists. The thought of this happening is enough to paralyze every Arab leader who would like to clamp down on al Jazeera in his country.

Every time a conflict erupts between Israel and Hamas, al Jazeera comes out in favor of the terrorist organization because of Qatar’s support of it. Hamas leader Haled Mashaal, makes his home in Qatar and the Qatari Emir is the only Arab leader so far to visit Hamas-ruled Gaza. The Emir has give billions to Hamas, enabling the organization to develop its  terror infrastructure.

Qatar has budgeted half a billion dollars to “buy” organizations such as UNESCO (whose next head will, unsurprisingly, be from Qatar), as well as media, academic and government figures to advance the goal of removing Jerusalem from Israeli hands. Al Jazeera runs a well publicized and organized campaign in order to ensure this outcome. This is the face of media jihad.

Saudi Arabia has never allowed al Jazeera‘s reporters to work from within the country, but does allow them to cover special events once in a while, mainly the Hajj. The Saudis know exactly what the Emir had up his sleeve when he founded a media network that would rule over Arab monarchs by means of recording their slip-ups, taking advantage of the Arab obsession with avoiding public humiliation by broadcasting from a satellite that can reach every house in the Arab world with no way of blocking it.

The last reports are that the Saudis blocked access to the al Jazeera internet site from their territory.  It is harder to block al Jazeera‘s satellite channel reception legally and it can still be accessed throughout the monarchy. Arab media attribute the blockage to declarations supportive of Hamas and Hezbollah made by the Emir of Qatar after Trump’s speech in Riyadh in which the US president included Hamas and Hezbollah in his list of terror organization, equating them with al Qaeda and ISIS.

Sorry, but I do not buy that story. Declarations about third parties (Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah) are ordinarily not the reason a public dispute erupts between Iranian monarchs. In my opinion, the reason for blocking the al Jazeera site in Saudi Arabia is a photograph posted on the al Jazeera site while Trump was in Riyadh.

This photo shows King Suleiman of Saudi Arabia awarding the Gold Decoration, the highest honor of the Saudi monarchy, to Donald Trump, but that is not the reason it was posted on al Jazeera. The reason has to do with the woman appearing in it and standing between Suleiman and Trump. I do not know what her name is, but she accompanied Trump during his entire stay in Riyadh standing just behind him and carrying a briefcase. Perhaps she is an interpreter. She is carrying a briefcase filled with important documents that have to be with Trump all the time in one picture as he, of course, would not be seen carrying a briefcase and standing be

What is interesting about this woman is that she spent the entire time in the royal palace with her hair uncovered, like Melania Trump, the First Lady, did, even though women with uncovered hair are not to be seen in Saudi Arabia. In the palace, women are also not allowed to b e seen in the company of men. Al Jazeera posted this photo intentionally, in order to embarrass the king who granted Trump an award even though he was accompanied by women who, like those in the picture, who do not cover their hair. That photo of the king was the last straw and the Saudis blocked al Jazeera.

Qatar is now under great pressure. The nations that broke off relations with Qatar have stopped recognizing the Qatari Rial as a viable currency and have confiscated all the Qatari Rials in their banks. As a result, Qatar cannot purchase goods with its own currency and must use its foreign currency reserves. The supermarket shelves in Qatar have been emptied by residents hoarding food for fear that the blockade will not allow food to be imported. Long lines of cars can be seen trying to leave for Saudi Arabia to escape being shut up in the besieged, wayward country.

Qatar is trying to get the US to help improve the situation. The largest American air force base in the Gulf is located in  Qatar and it is from there that the attacks on ISIS are generated. Qatar also hosts the US Navy Fifth Fleet as well as the Central Command and Control of US forces in that part of the world. Qatari media stress the US concern about the siege that the Saudis have put on Qatar.

As part of its efforts to enlist US aid, Qatar has begun a counterattack: Qatar media have publicized that the U.A.E. ambassador, Yousef Al Otaiba , said on US election eve: “What star could make Donald Trump the president?” This is intended to cause a rift between the US and the Gulf Emirates, but will certainly not improve Qatar’s own relations with the Emirates.

Meanwhile, the Saudis and the Emirates have ejected Qatar from the coalition fighting the Houthis in Yemen, and there are rumors that they will also remove Qatar from the Council for Cooperation in the Gulf. The Saudis could suspend Qatar’s membership in the Arab League and other organizations if this dispute continues, raising the pressure on the Emir’s al-Thani clan.

The next few days will decide Qatar’s future. There  is a distinct possibility that the foreign ministers of Qatar and the Arab nations taking part in the boycott against it will meet in some neutral spot, perhaps Kuwait, Qatar will give in and new rules will be set by Arab leaders, that is by King Suleiman, to keep Qatar in line. They would include: toning down al Jazeera and perhaps even switching its managerial staff, ending the support for the Muslim Brotherhood and other terror organizations, ending cooperation with Iran and above all, listening to what the Saudi “Big Brother” says about issues, especially those having to do with financial dealings with the US. Once the conditions for Qatari surrender are agreed upon, we can expect the ministers to meet the press, publicize a declaration on the end of the intra-family dispute, shake hands before the cameras and smile – until the next crisis.

There is, however, another scenario: Qatar does not give in, the Saudis and its allies invade, their armies eject the Emir and Mufti of Qatar, and also Jamal Rian, the guiding brain behind Al Jazeera’s  policies. They would then appoint a new Emir from the ruling family, one who knows how to behave, one who listens to the Saudis.  No one except for Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas would oppose this solution, and the soft-spoken condemnations will not succeed in hiding the world’s joy and sighs of relief if the Saudis actually carry out that plan.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Arutz Sheva, translated by Rochel Sylvetsky, Op-ed editor and senior consultant Israelnationalnews.com.

Do You Lock Your Door at Night?

If you have an open mind, and want to analyze the travel ban from one professional perspective, read on.  If not, close your mind – at our nation’s peril.

What is the travel ban?  You may try to read it before you judge it.

Summarized, the U.S. government will not allow travelers from 7 countries of “particular concern” into the United States – Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Sudan for 90 days.  All refugees are halted for 120 days, Syrian refugees indefinitely.

Why? To evaluate the post 9/11 vetting processes required to enter the U.S., in order to protect U.S. citizens from violent extremist attacks.  Questions that must be addressed:  1. Is there a threat? Is there weakness in the system? 2. How can we make us safer?

The Obama administration labeled 3 of these countries as states sponsors of terrorism – Iran, Syria and Sudan. With the exception of Iran, each of the countries has a failed central government or is locked in deadly civil war.  Obama ordered attacks on 6 of them.

Is there a threat?  Sophisticated and well-resourced Islamic extremists, including ISIS and Al Qaeda, are fighting on their territories.  Thousands of men, women and even children have planned, trained and sworn oaths to kill Americans as a religious duty.  Their numbers have grown exponentially in the last 7 years – while we tried to be accepting.  It is not easy to distinguish the fighters from the innocent.

Is there a weakness? As a former Counter-Terror professional, Intelligence Officer and Security Assistance Officer at multiple US Embassies, I can say with high confidence that the visa system still has weaknesses.  The system still depends on people.  People make mistakes.  A few are corrupt.

According to the 9/11 Commission report, the attack plotters submitted 23 visa requests, 22 were approved.  Only two terrorists were actually interviewed, and a single consular officer issued 11 of the 19 hijackers’ visas.  The commission believed that without these visas, the plot would have likely failed.

After the devastation of 9/11, the visa process changed dramatically.  It now depends on much improved information sharing and cooperation among many federal agencies, foreign governments, DHS Visa Support Units (VSUs), data bases and biometrics.  Many of my U.S. State Department friends, government bureaucrats, and vocal partisan activists defend the process, and say we owe people entry.

However, the system depends on the effectiveness of the intelligence community.  It depends greatly on cooperation with the traveler’s host nation government to provide accurate information, background checks and criminal histories.  And finally, it rests on the consular officer who issues the visa.  The complex system is only as good as the data collected, and the people involved.

These 7 states have either supported terror, or have very weak institutions torn by war.  The U.S. doesn’t have effective relations with their police, intelligence or military. No one is taking biometric scans of every teenage ISIS fighter, or female jihadists.  Often a State Department junior officer, doing his or her mandatory one-time consular tour, approves a visa.  For these places of concern, the consular is probably not even in the applicant’s home country.

Consular officers are fallible; a few are convicted of fraud and corruption. Cut every year.  My wife’s former boss, Pat Raikes, the senior consular in Beirut just before 9/11, traded airline tickets for visas.  In 2015, Michael Sestak, pled guilty to trading over 500 visas for more than $3 million. Prior to the Foreign Service, Sestak was a police officer, Federal Marshall, and Navy Intelligence Officer.  Apparently Shayna Steiner, the Foreign Service Officer who issued those 11 hijackers’ visas, still works for the Department of State.  She may not be a criminal, maybe a good person – but she made mistakes that cost thousands of lives.

The intelligence community missed 9/11 (2,996 killed, 6,000+ wounded.)  Good people missed clear terror ties to the San Bernardino shooters (14 killed, 22 wounded.)  FBI agents interviewed, investigated and released the ISIS aligned Pulse Nightclub shooter – twice (49 killed, 52 wounded), and the recent Ft. Lauderdale shooter (5 killed, 6 wounded.) The FBI knew of the Boston bomber (3 killed, 264 wounded.)  US Army Major Nadal killed 14 soldiers after openly briefing other Army psychologists on his growing animosity and fundamentalist awakening.  In each of these cases, the system failed.  Good people missed it – or were too arrogant, incompetent, or in fear of politically-correct retribution to act.

Every consular knows applicants lie, even if they are not terrorists.  Good people will say anything to get to America.  You can bet trained ISIS or Al Qaeda fighters will lie better.  It is hard to sort the innocent from the evil.  Ultimately the system rests on the competence and personal judgments of thousands of dedicated but imperfect people, often with flawed data.  The vast majority of our people are fantastic professionals, but Americans pay dearly for the bad ones and the mistakes.

How can we make us safer?  We must listen to what we don’t want to hear, and wish wasn’t true – accept that many religious fundamentalists want to destroy America, whether you believe it is America’s fault or not.  Accept that we have weaknesses and can improve our system. Accept that our elected government has the fundamental responsibility to protect all U.S. citizens, and our constitution above all else – not foreign citizens or failed states.

We should demand reviews like this one.  We must update our processes continually.  We must ensure our good people are alert and accountable, or we guarantee another 9/11, Boston or San Bernardino.  If our enemies have their way, the next attack will be much worse.

We should protect our borders and enhance our safety, just as we lock our doors when we know there is danger.  Leaving your door open doesn’t keep bad guys away, it invites them in.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of Breitbart. In wake of Paris terrorist attacks, below is a map of the states shutting their doors to Syrian refugees.

DS_states-refuse-refugees_ftr_v7-1250x650

Kentucky Gov.-elect Matt Bevin, who took office on December 8th, 2016, also said he opposes resettlement efforts.

IOM: Mediterranean migrant ships won’t stop until Europe finds ways to let them come legally

Invasion of Europe News….

Sheesh! The International Organization for Migration (IOM) yesterday said, don’t stop the boats and the boat people from Africa and the Middle East, find ways for them to migrate legally to Europe. (See former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott tell the Europeans to turn back the boats, here.)

iom-bags

The IOM was for years a quasi-non-profit organization (getting most of its money from governments) and a US refugee contracting agency whose job it was, and still is, to get refugees ready to fly to your towns and cities. You will see refugees in US airports with blue IOM bags.

Now the agency has been folded in to the United Nations and it is one more reason to sever our ties with the UN!

Here, yesterday, they reported on the number of illegal migrants who have arrived in Europe in 2016.

Switzerland – IOM on Friday (06/01) reported preliminary totals for all 2016 migrant and refugee arrivals to Europe via the Mediterranean Sea, as well as estimated fatalities. Arrival totals were 363,348 split almost evenly between Italy and Greece, with much smaller numbers arriving in Malta, Cyprus and Spain. Fatalities and missing migrants reached at least 5,079 although IOM emphasizes that some incidents reported in the month of December and earlier have not been fully accounted for.

According to IOM’s Missing Migrants Project, incidents off Spain, Morocco and Tunisia have been reported whose victim totals could add another 300 or more fatalities to the 2016 total. The year 2016 already is the deadliest for migrants ever recorded by IOM in the region.

The probable addition of several hundred more fatalities recorded in 2016 only deepens the tragedy, said IOM Director General William Lacy Swing, who added, Europe’s frustration with a seemingly endless cycle of migrant rescue followed by reports of shipwrecks and more drownings won’t end until governments throughout the region find a way to manage migration comprehensively.

“Migrants and refugees aren’t coming because they believe their lives will be rescued at sea once they leave Africa or Syria or wherever conflicts drives people to seek safety,” Ambassador Swing said. “They’re leaving because they believe their lives will be doomed if they stay. The answer lies in finding creative means to permit safe, legal and secure migration, be that through work visas, family reunification or temporary protected status. [UNHCR is searching for “alternative pathways” to move the third world to the first since most of these migrants are not legitimate refugees.—ed] Instead of doubling down on tactics that don’t work, let’s use this New Year to try something that’s actually new.”

mediteranean-arrivals

Map of Mediterranean arrivals of Muslim migrants. Italy and Greece suffer the most.

Read the whole article, these numbers are way down for Greece, but up for Italy.

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

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Very strange story as Africans nearly freeze to death crossing our northern border to leave US!

First Syrians to Rutland, VT in direct challenge to Donald Trump

Esteban Santiago [a.k.a. Aashiq Hammad] is a Puerto Rican Salafist Sunni Muslim

EDITORS UPDATE:

WeSearchr and GotNews published more of their findings that neither the government nor media have yet discovered or released: BREAKING: #FortLauderdale Terrorist #EstebanSantiago Joined MySpace As “Aashiq Hammad”, Recorded Islamic Music – GotNews

Fort Lauderdale Airport terrorist Esteban Santiago registered on MySpace under the name “Aashiq Hammad” and recorded Islamic religious music on the site, 3 years before he ever deployed to Iraq as a U.S. soldier, destroying the lying mainstream media’s narrative that he was just a mentally disturbed veteran and that “Islam had nothing to do with it.”

[ … ]

And take a look at the three songs recorded by “Aashiq Hammad.” The first one is titled “La ilaha illAllah”, which is Arabic for “There is no God but Allah,” and the first half of the Muslim declaration of faith, the Shahadah:

[ … ]

That song was recorded in 2007, 3 years before Esteban Santiago went to Iraq as a U.S. soldier in 2010, destroying the lying mainstream media’s narrative that he was a “mentally disturbed veteran”, although even they admit Santiago went into an FBI office in 2015 and told agents he was being forced to watch ISIS videos by voices in his head (or something).

2007 was also the year that “Naota33” was posting on an explosives/weapons forum about mass-downloading Islamic propaganda videos, as GotNews exclusively revealed yesterday.

[ … ]

“Aashiq Hammad” also has Bryan Santiago — Esteban’s brother — as a connection…

The perpetrator of today’s random shooting at Fort Lauderdale, Esteban Santiago Ruiz is a Puerto Rican Salafist Sunni Muslim who was a resident of Anchorage, Alaska. CBS reported that he walked into an Anchorage, Alaska FBI office in November 2016 claiming he was forced to fight for ISIS.

He was born in New Jersey, but moved to Penuela, Puerto Rico to live with his brother and mother shortly thereafter. He moved to Alaska in 2015 for work, and had been employed as a security guard. Same job as Omar Mateen, the perpetrator of the Orlando Pulse Nightclub Massacre. He was “fighting with a lot of people” during his time in Alaska, including his girlfriend. At the time of the shooting, he was receiving mental help for his depression .

Santiago Ruiz is reportedly a Sunni Muslim with Salafist beliefs, and he is a father of one. He served in the Puerto Rican National Guard for six years. He also signed up for the National Guard as a combat engineer and served a year in Iraq. Reports indicate he had a history of mental health issues. In November 2016, he walked into the FBI office in Anchorage, claiming he was fighting for ISIS.

Esteban Santiago Ruiz’s record:

  • February 2015: Eviction for nonpayment of rent.
  • January 2016: Fourth-degree assault and damage of property, from a domestic violence incident. Santiago settled the charges.
  • On January 6, 2017 Esteban Santiago killed 5 people and injured many more in the . His name was released by Florida US Senator Bill Nelson on MSNBC. He was carrying a military ID.
  • On January 6, 2017 Esteban Santiago killed 5 people and injured many more in the Fort Lauderdale Airport shooting. His name was released by Florida U.S. Senator Bill Nelson on MSNBC . He was carrying a military ID.

Santiago took Delta Airlines Flight #1088 from Anchorage to Minneapolis – Saint Paul Thursday night. He landed Friday morning, and then took Delta Flight no. 2182 from Minneapolis-St. Paul to Fort Lauderdale. He then appeared in the Terminal 2 baggage claim area wearing a Star Wars shirt.

Witnesses say he appeared to randomly target his victims during the shooting spree which has left at at least five people dead and many more injured. He was apprehended by authorities when he stopped shooting to reload, witnesses said.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Airport Shooter Converted to Islam, Identified as Aashiq Hammad Years Before Joining Army

The Trump Administration Should Treat Islamists Like The Mafia

Fort Lauderdale Airport Shooter Lived Near Islamic Community Center of Anchorage Mosque

Fort Lauderdale Airport shooter had told FBI he was forced to fight for the Islamic State

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Santiago pictured wearing a black on green Palestinian Keffiyeh scarf giving a “one-finger salute,” a gesture displayed by the ISIS gunman who shot the Russian ambassador in December.

Iran built on stolen property — Trump should take it back

President-elect Donald Trump was right during the campaign to call the Iran nuclear agreement “the worst deal ever negotiated” by the United States government.

Not only did it reward a terrorist state with $100 billion of frozen oil revenues (some say, $150 billion), it dismantled an extensive armature of international sanctions that had cut Iran’s oil exports in half, banned it from the international financial system, and was beginning to threaten the regime with domestic unrest.

Obama tried to set this bad nuclear deal in concrete by incorporating most of its measures into a United Nations Security Council Resolution.

This will make its undoing more complicated than some analysts imagine. It’s not just a piece of paper President Trump can rip up, as a group of American nuclear scientistsimply. The international sanctions regime Obama destroyed took years to build and cannot be reconstructed in a day.

But the incoming president and Congress have other options for ratcheting up pressure on the Iranian regime, options that can be enacted unilaterally.

A group of conservative leaders released a letter to House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.) on Thursday, commending him for a resolution he introduced in the final days of the last Congress on the restitution of or compensation for property wrongly confiscated by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

“Totalitarian regimes historically have confiscated property from individuals whose sole ‘crime’ consisted of supporting the previous government,” the letter states.

“When the Islamic regime seized power in 1979, it followed in the footsteps of these earlier totalitarians.”

The letter, and spearheaded by the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, which I chair, recalled Congressional action against previous cases of unjust expropriation, most notably the Helms-Burton Act — also known as the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 — which penalized foreign companies trafficking in property stolen from Cuban nationals.

“Pro-Castro advocates screamed that Helms-Burton would cause irrevocable harm to the United States with friends and allies around the world. Nothing of the sort occurred,” the letter states.

“We believe the time has come to envisage a similar measure for the victims of the Islamic Republic of Iran, many of whom have become United States citizens, whose properties were unjustly expropriated.”

Signatories to the letter include Colin A. Hanna, President of Let Freedom Ring; Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, Jr, former Pacific Fleet commander; Frank Gaffney, President and CEO of the Center for Security Policy; Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation; Amy Ridenour, Chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research; Ellen Sauerbrey, former Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration; and myself.

The letter also won support and was signed by Iranian-American human rights advocates and journalists and by leaders of the American Middle East Coalition for Trump.

On July 7, 1979, the new Islamic state in Iran issued a decree seizing the assets of 51 supporters of the previous regime and their families. A few weeks later, a revolutionary Court issued a separate order confiscating the assets of another 209 individuals and their families.

According to court documents the claimants provided to me, the properties seized included major factories and industrial conglomerates, hotels, private residences, real estate, land, stock, and other holdings, which today are worth more than $100 billion.

In all, thousands of Iranians were directly robbed by the Islamic regime, and millions more were terrorized with the threat of confiscations.

Many of these individuals subsequently fled to America and became U.S. citizens. But few were American citizens at the time of the revolution, and thus have been unable to seek restitution through the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in The Hague, or through U.S. courts.

Their assets were turned over to para-state foundations, known as “bonyads,” which are owned or controlled by the Supreme Leader or the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). Despite the extensive sanctions relief included in the bad Iran deal, the IRGC continues to be subject to United States government sanctions because it kills Americans in state-sponsored terror attacks around the world.

Ordinary Iranians understand that the ruling clerics have plundered their country. How else could a village cleric such as “Supreme Leader” Ali Khamenei personally own a commercial empire the U.S. Treasury has estimated to be worth more than $40 billion? A separate 2013 Reuters investigation found that the property confiscations on behalf of Iran’s clerical leadership were about $95 billion.

A Congressionally-enacted Iran Assets Recovery Plan would be a powerful weapon the ruling clerics in Iran could not ignore.

Not only would it bring justice to some of the many victims of the Islamic state in Iran, it would put the Iranian regime’s foreign partners on notice.

Traffic in stolen property at your peril. A regime founded on theft will end up bankrupt, in jail, or dead.

Remembering the 1979 Russian Invasion of Afghanistan: How Democrats created radical Islamic terrorism

Don Hank in an email titled “This is how the terror started (in 1979)” provided this quote:

In his 1993 memoirs [“From the Shadows“], ex-Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) Robert Gates revealed that direct CIA involvement in Afghanistan had commenced almost six months before the Soviet invasion. Jimmy Carter signed a presidential decree in July 1979 to covertly aid the Mujahideen insurgents.

Hank then wrote, “And then came Al-Qaeda and the 9-11 attack, and then ISIS and the invasion of Europe. It all seems to have started with the CIA. If you want a war on terror, you have to start with the people who spawned the terror. A true war on terror would include a war on the CIA. It starts with education.”

Hank provided a link to a Daryl Morini, paper dated January 3rd, 2010 titled “Why Did the Soviet Union Invade Afghanistan?.” Morini wrote:

The Soviet intervention in Afghanistan was a costly and, ultimately, pointless war. Historical hindsight has made this evident. However, exactly why the Red Army wound up in direct military conflict, embroiled in a bitter and complicated civil war—some 3,000 kilometres away from Moscow—is a point of historiographical uncertainty. The evidence available suggests that geopolitical calculations were at the top of the Kremlin’s goals. These were arguably to deter US interference in the USSR’s ‘backyard’, to gain a highly strategic foothold in Southwest Asia and, not least of all, to attempt to contain the radical Islamic revolution emanating from Iran. The subsidiary goal of the invasion was to secure an ideologically-friendly régime in the region.

[ … ]

Following the 1970s period of détente between the United States (US) and the Soviet Union, the latter seemed to be in an advantageous strategic position, compared to the post-Vietnam paralysis which plagued its main opponent. Scott McMichael, a military historian, argued that this “turned out largely to be an illusion,” although there is substance to the claim that the Soviet Union was ahead of the game in the lead u p to 1979. This is exemplified by Moscow’s increasing assertiveness in foreign affairs during this period. As a direct result of the so-called ‘Brezhnev doctrine’, the USSR asserted its “right and duty” to go to war in foreign countries “if and when an existing socialist regime was threatened.” [Emphasis added]

Read more…

Is Russia, under Putin, making the same mistake that his predecessors in the Former Soviet Union made by exerting Russia’s “right and duty” to go to war in foreign countries “if an when an existing socialist regime [like Assad’s Syria] was threatened.” According to Wikipedia:

The Ba’ath Party, and indirectly the Syrian Regional Branch, was established on 7 April 1947 by Michel Aflaq (a Christian), Salah al-Din al-Bitar (a Sunni Muslim) and Zaki al-Arsuzi (an Alawite). According to the congress, the party was “nationalist, populist, socialist, and revolutionary” and believed in the “unity and freedom of the Arab nation within its homeland.” 

[ … ]

The party merged with the Arab Socialist Party (ASP), led by Akram al-Hawrani, to establish the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party in Lebanon following Adib Shishakli‘s rise to power. [Emphasis added]

Read more…

Has President Obama made the same mistake as Jimmy Carter did in 1979 by arming the anti-Assad Mujahideen insurgents? Is the CIA complicit, once again, in doing the wrong thing for what it believes is in America’s national interests?

President-elect Donald J. Trump has expressed his doubts about the CIA and other U.S. national intelligence agencies, especially when it comes to Russia, Iran, North Korea, China and Syria.

On January 20th, 2017 Donald J. Trump will be sworn into the Office of the President of these United States. Will a President Trump learn from the failures of both Democratic President’s Carter and Obama? Me thinks so.

RELATED ARTICLE: Secretary of State Kerry’s Speech on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict