Friday, December 18, 2015

More Lies from Abbas about The "Intifada" - Bassam Tawil



by Bassam Tawil


  • We still have never encountered even one case where a terrorist complained about the absence of a two-state solution. Also, contrary to Abbas's claim, none of the terrorists has ever complained about checkpoints or settlements. This latest wave of terrorism is not about "despair," unemployment, poor living conditions or freedom of movement. Instead, it is another attempt by Palestinian "youths" to eliminate Israel, again using the false excuse that Jews are "desecrating" and "destroying" Islamic holy sites.
  • A review of the Facebook accounts of most of the terrorists shows that their main intention was to murder as many Jews as possible in order to become "martyrs" -- to impose a reign of terror Jews, to force them to leave Israel.
  • Abbas is well aware that the "youths" are not complaining about the "occupation." The "occupation" these " youths" have a problem with is the one that began with the creation of Israel in 1948.
  • A new generation of Palestinians has once again been deceived into believing that the Jews are plotting to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque. The Al-Aqsa Mosque stands, as always, unharmed in its place.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas now wants us to believe that the Palestinian "youths," who are sent out to murder Jewish soldiers and civilians, are acting out of "despair." He wants us to believe that these "youths" decided to murder Jews because their dream of a two-state solution has not been realized. Abbas is also trying to convince us that these "youths" are upset about Israeli checkpoints, construction in settlements, and visits by Jews to the Noble Sanctuary (Temple Mount).

These latest statements by President Abbas show that he is either completely disconnected from reality, or else thinks that everyone will believe whatever he tells them. His claim -- that the Palestinian assailants who carry out stabbing and car ramming attacks against Israelis, are frustrated because the two-state solution has not yet been realized -- is, frankly, an insult. We still have never encountered one case -- ever -- where a terrorist complained about the absence of a two-state solution. Also, contrary to Abbas's claim, none of the terrorists has ever complained about settlements or checkpoints. In fact, these "youths" that Abbas is talking about are mostly affiliated with Hamas, and do not believe in any two-state solution. Like Hamas, these terrorists want to see Israel wiped off the map.

Abbas's "youths," who, since the beginning of October, have murdered 22 Israelis and wounded dozens of others, set out on their missions because their leaders have been telling them that the Jews are planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque. These "youths" are driven by hatred, not by 'despair," as Abbas has been claiming. His allegation that the "youths" are "lone wolves" acting on their own initiative is also not true. What is true is that both Hamas and Islamic Jihad have publicly admitted that some of the terrorists were members of these two Islamist groups.

Take, for example, the most recent case, of 21-year-old Abdel Muhsen Hassouneh, the east Jerusalem terrorist who rammed his car into a group of Israelis at a bus stop earlier this week. He wounded 14 people, including an 18-month-old infant who remains in hospital in critical condition. Shortly after the attack, Hamas announced that this terrorist was one of its group.

Similarly, Islamic Jihad also endorsed some of the terrorists who carried out the recent attacks in Jerusalem and the West Bank -- again exploding the claim that the "youths" were acting on their own. On October 3, Islamic Jihad took credit for a stabbing attack in Jerusalem's Old City, in which two Israeli men were killed. The group announced that the terrorist, Muhannad al-Halabi, was an active member of Islamic Jihad.

A review of the Facebook accounts of most of the terrorists shows that their main intent was to murder as many Jews as possible in order to become "martyrs." Their goal was to impose a reign of terror and intimidation on Jews to force them to leave Israel.

Abbas is well aware that the "youths" are not complaining about the "occupation" of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem. The "occupation" these " youths" have a problem with is the one that began with the creation of Israel in 1948. As recently as last month, official Palestinian Authority TV was stating this, adding that Israel would cease to exist: "The occupation must know... [Haifa, Jaffa, Acre, Nazareth] - all of this land belongs to us... and will return to us."

Jewish visits to the Noble Sanctuary, or Temple Mount, are merely an excuse being used to proceed with the plan to eliminate Israel. The Al-Aqsa Mosque has not been destroyed or desecrated by Jews. The terrorists nevertheless continue to launch attacks against Israelis under the pretext that Jews are seeking to destroy Islamic holy sites.

The person who bears much of the responsibility for these attacks is Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas. His ongoing lies and inflammatory, anti-Israeli rhetoric have contributed significantly to the poisoning of the hearts and minds of many of these "youths." It was Abbas who told his people, a few days before the current wave of terrorism erupted, that he would not allow Jews to "contaminate with their filthy feet our holy sites." It was also Abbas who announced that, "Every drop of blood that is spilled in Jerusalem is pure blood."

The Palestinians, unfortunately, have already seen this movie. In September 2000, Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority lied to their people about Ariel Sharon's visit to the Noble Sanctuary. Then, Arafat and the PA told Palestinians that Sharon and the Jews were planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque. As a result of this incitement, Palestinians took to the streets and we found ourselves in the midst of something called the Al-Aqsa Intifada, which lasted from 2000 until 2005, and consisted of a wave of suicide bombings and various terror attacks that killed hundreds of Israelis and thousands of Palestinians. This intifada was supposedly meant to prevent the Jews from "destroying" the Al-Aqsa Mosque. The Palestinians knew -- they saw -- that Sharon and the Jews had not destroyed the Al-Aqsa Mosque, yet that did not prevent them from waging a massive campaign of terrorism against Israel. The Al-Aqsa Mosque stands, as always, unharmed in its place.


Today, history seems to be repeating itself, as a new generation of Palestinians has once again been deceived into believing that the Jews are plotting to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque. In the Al-Aqsa Intifada, Palestinian youths were not driven by "despair," and they are not driven by "despair" now. They are driven by hatred and bigotry towards Israel and Jews. The generation of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, like the " youths" of today, believed that suicide bombings and drive-by shootings would ultimately lead to the destruction of Israel.

We are now witnessing the same scenario. Although the Al-Aqsa Mosque has neither been desecrated nor destroyed, the stabbings and car attacks continue almost on a daily basis. Would you like to know why? Because there is a new generation of Palestinians who believes that this from of terrorism will bring them closer to achieving their goal of destroying Israel.

President Abbas knows that he is lying when he talks about the "despair" of Palestinians because of checkpoints and settlements. The terrorists from east Jerusalem held Israeli-issued ID cards which gave them the right to travel around freely and work in Israel.

The only difference between these terrorists and an Israeli citizen is that they cannot vote for members of parliament. One of the east Jerusalem terrorists, Abu Jamal, was even working for the Israeli phone company, Bezeq, and was receiving a monthly salary of nearly USD $4500. He and the other terrorists were certainly not driven by "despair."

Some of the terrorists who came from the West Bank had Israeli-issued permits to work inside Israel. The permits did not stop these terrorists from setting out to murder Jews. Take, for example, the case of Raed Masalmeh, 36, who murdered two Israelis in Tel Aviv last month. He had a work permit and was employed at a restaurant in Jaffa. He was neither unemployed nor restricted in his freedom of movement. He is the last person who can be described as "desperate."

The current wave of terrorism against Israelis is not linked to settlements, checkpoints or a two-state solution. Nor, as Abbas falsely claims, does it have to do with the Al-Aqsa Mosque or a feeling of "despair" and "frustration." The terrorists have one thing in mind -- destroying Israel and killing as many Jews as they can.

What we are witnessing these days is an attempt by a new generation of brainwashed Palestinians to eliminate Israel. These "youths" want to replace Israel with an Islamist empire. We have not heard even one of them complain about a checkpoint or settlement, or that he or she is seeking a Palestinian state next to Israel. This latest wave of terrorism is not about "despair." It is not about unemployment, poor living conditions or freedom of movement. Instead, it is another attempt by Palestinian "youths" to eliminate Israel, by again using the false excuse that Jew are "desecrating" and "destroying" Islamic holy sites. This is something that President Abbas knows very well, but does not have the courage to admit. He prefers to continue lying not only to the international community, but even to his own public.


Bassam Tawil is a scholar based in the Middle East.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7064/intifada-abbas-lies

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Salafis' Daddy Warbucks: Saudi Arabia - Rachel Ehrenfeld



by Rachel Ehrenfeld

Who will stand up to the Saudis for fostering Islamic terrorism?



The first-ever global meeting of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) network of some 200 jurisdictions over the weekend in Paris “to discuss actions…to combat the financing of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) …and to combat the financing of terrorism ” will probably make the participants feel good, but will do little to cut-off state sponsorship of the fast growing radical Islamist movement.

The development of new technologies and encryption of online communications, financial transactions and other non-traditional methods to transfer money present serious obstacles to monitoring funding of large number of terrorists and their supporters.  But the most important obstacle is the West’s decades-long willful blindness to name and shame Saudi Arabia as the biggest terror financier, as well as the Saudis' role in the development and spread of opaque Sharia finance institutions and Islamic charities.

Thus, Germany’s Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel's recent condemnation of Saudi Arabia’s ongoing funding of the spread of radical Islam in the West was surprising. “Wahhabi mosques all over the world are financed by Saudi Arabia. Many Islamists who are a threat to public safety come from these communities," he told Bild am Sonntag, the largest-selling German Sunday paper. Even more unexpected was his statement: “We have to make clear to the Saudis that the time of looking away is over.”

The Saudi role in fostering Islamic terrorism is no secret. Before it came under some criticism after the al Qaeda’s 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Saudi Kingdom used to openly brag about its large donations to build, maintain and supply mosques, Islamic centers and madrassas, stocking them with Wahhabi Imams and ulemas (religious teachers) and covering expenses such as salaries, pensions, and “terrorcare” that included hospitals and other public services.

Directed by Muslim Brotherhood advisors who championed the oxymoron ‘Political Islam’ to deceive the infidels, the Kingdom funded Western tax exempt Islamic organizations engaged in dawah (proselytization for Islam). Among them were networks of charitable organizations that provide financial aid to prisoners (including non-Muslims to lure them to Islam) in Western jails, lavishly funded academic chairs in Middle East Studies in universities around the world, student-exchange programs and spending many millions of dollars to increase Saudi political influence in the West -- even contributing $100 million to coordinate and assist the United Nations international counterterrorism efforts.

Saudi efforts to bring Wahhabi Islam to global dominance began in earnest in 1962, with the establishment of the first international Saudi charity, the Muslim World League (MWL). Influenced by exiled Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood members, then-Crown Prince Faisal bin Abdul Aziz used growing oil revenues to fund MWL, which in turn established many other Islamic charities and nonprofits that helped directly and indirectly create the global jihadist movement. Successive Saudi kings have created additional "charitable” organizations to fund the worldwide spread of Wahhabism and have on occasion organized several national campaigns encouraging their subjects to support Sunni terror organizations outside the country, including the PLO, Hamas and al Qaeda. Thus it would be wrong to distinguish between contributions to radical Sunni organizations by the Saudi theocratic monarchy, its government and its wealthy subjects.

But Saudi support for terrorism extends much beyond direct deposits to openly radical elements. Direct financing of terrorist activities is but one of several means to further their agenda.

Indeed, little has changed since then-Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Stuart Levey’s testimony before the Senate Finance Committee in 2008 that Saudi Arabia is “serious about fighting Al Qaeda in the kingdom[but] the seriousness of purpose with respect to the money going out of the kingdom is not as high” (emphasis added).

The spread of Salafist radical groups, such as the global Hizb ut-Tahrir, Tablighi Jamaat, and ISIS proves the effectiveness of the decades-long, $2 trillion's worth of Saudi funding to indoctrinate Muslims everywhere, creating a large base of followers ready for further radicalization of what the West has erroneously labeled “self-radicalization.”

Saudi Arabia’s role in initiating and fomenting worldwide Muslim riots to curtail Western free speech has been mostly ignored. However, Muslims riots following the October 2005 publication of the Muhammad cartoons in Denmark's largest daily, Jyllands-Posten, began only after Saudi Arabia recalled its ambassador to Denmark; after Sheikh Osama Khayyat, imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, praised on national Saudi television the Saudi government for its action; and after Sheikh Ali Al-Hudaify, imam of the Prophet's Mosque in Medina, called “upon governments, organizations and scholars in the Islamic world to extend support for campaigns protesting the sacrilegious attacks on the Prophet.” The Saudi-controlled Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) initiated and coordinated Muslim rioting worldwide after the Danish Muhammad cartoon publications.

Moreover, to wield more control over Muslim communities worldwide, better orchestrate “spontaneous demonstrations,” and better allocate funds for them, the Saudi-backed OIC established the clerical International Commission for Zakat (ICZ) on 30 April 2007. Previously, there were more than 20,000 organizations that collected zakat. Now, however, the Islamic clerics' centralized “expert committee” based in Malaysia also supervises and distributes zakat funds globally. Yet, President Obama and his former Secretary of State and current Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, describe Malaysia as a “moderate Muslim country” and Saudi Arabia as an ally.

The public outrage and rejection of Saudi King Salman’s offer to fund 200 new mosques for more than 800,000 new Muslim refugees in Germany, and the Vice Chancellor’s statement: “We have to make clear to the Saudis that the time of looking away is over” point in the right direction. But don’t hold your breath. Germany, the United States and the rest of the West have been turning a blind eye to Saudi funding of thousands of mosques, madrassas and Islamic centers that have propagated radical Islamic ideology for decades and are unlikely to face reality anytime soon.



Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is director of the New York-based American Center for Democracy and author of hundreds of articles and several books, including How Terrorism is Financed - and How to Stop It. 

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261130/salafis-daddy-warbucks-saudi-arabia-rachel-ehrenfeld

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Saudi Author Turki Al-Hamad: We Can Fight ISIS With 'Reprograming Our Cultural Mentality' & A 'Religious Revolution' - MEMRI



by MEMRI

 The revolution in our education should be based on the humanization of religion."



5216MTV A.jpg
Host: "How can we fight ISIS ideologically?"
5216MTV B.jpg

Turki Al-Hamad: "There is no magical solution. There is no magic wand that could change things. The deformation that our societies have undergone for the past three decades will need a long time [to repair]. It should be based on the reprograming of our cultural mentality. We should reprogram our culture in one way or another, and that can only be achieved through a real revolution in our education. The revolution in our education should be based on the humanization of religion."
Host: "What do you mean by 'the humanization of religion'?"

5216MTV C.jpg
Turki Al-Hamad: "Religion is the cornerstone of our culture. But our religion has been hijacked by many and has been made savage, so to speak. Humanizing religion means to look for its humane aspects."
[...]
5216MTV D.jpg

Turki Al-Hamad: "The truth is that we need a kind of religious revolution – a religious revolution that would restore religion to our Lord."

5216MTV E.jpg

Host: "Some accuse you, along with others associated with the liberal current, of 'provoking the sentiments of society,' thus pushing the youth toward extremism. How do you respond to such accusations?"

5216MTV F.jpg

Turki Al-Hamad: "If you asked these youths, they probably wouldn’t know who I am. This is not a matter of provocation. When you present a new idea, or warn of certain disease and offer treatment – of course it is painful. This is not a provocation. This is picking [at] the wound. It is time to stop ignoring our wounds and pains just so we won't provoke anyone. You cannot go to a doctor, for example, and tell him not touch your wound because it hurts. Of course it hurts. It is a wound, and it was caused by many things. If you want to treat this wound, you must touch it and deal with it directly. Unfortunately, we have not yet acknowledged the fact that ISIS is an organization that only reaps what has previously been sown."

5216MTV G.jpg

[...]
Turki Al-Hamad: "When I have no solution...We see the entire world contributing to modern civilization, but we have nothing to show for it. So what do we do? We do not admit that we are incapable or that we have no solution. We resort to the past as an excuse for a strategy. But returning to the past is not a strategy. It is connected, one way or another, to conspiracy narratives, and to the claim that the others are plotting against us, and that we are being targeted, and so on. All
 these are self-defense mechanisms."
[...]
5216MTV H.JPG

Turki Al-Hamad: "Where does the Muslim refugee go? To Europe and America. Where does the Muslim enjoy liberties? In Britain. A Muslim there can demonstrate in the streets of London, declare that he is against the British state, and criticize the regime. A week ago, there was a demonstration of Islamists in Denmark. They all called for an Islamic Caliphate, from the heart of Denmark, and under the protection of the local police. If Western secularism was really against religion, would people there be allowed to build mosques – or churches, for that matter?"

5216MTV I.jpg
[...]

Host: "Are you saying that secularism is the solution?"
Turki Al-Hamad: "In many cases, separating the religious institution [from the state]... I'm not calling to shut it down, but it cannot trump all other considerations. The religious institution is a mad-made institution. We must differentiate between the religious institution and religion itself. Only religion is sacred. The religious institution is a social institution, just like many others."
[...]

Turki Al-Hamad: "What did the Sykes-Picot accord do? Some would say that it brought about the division in the Arab world, but that is not true. Before Sykes-Picot, the Ottoman Caliphate was supposedly in charge, but what really happened on the ground? Egypt had an independent ruler, and so did Tunisia, and in the Arabian Peninsula there were emirates, each with its own ruler. The Arab world was already divided. People tend to idealize the past, and to claim that before Sykes-Picot there was one united Ottoman state. But in fact, that was not the case. It was divided into several states. When Kemal Ataturk declared the end of the Ottoman Caliphate, people claimed that he had ended the Caliphate, but he did not do so. It had already come to an end long before he declared it. Therefore, this bickering against Sykes-Picot, as if it is to blame for all our problems, is not right."




MEMRI

Source:

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Is Islam Reformable? - Amil Imani



by Amil Imani

Ask the many Muslims who have tried.  (You may have some difficulty exhuming them.)


Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, and a host of others believe that Islam can and should be reformed. 

But how?

The idea of reforming Islam is not entirely new.  But Islam cannot be reformed the way Christianity was.  For one, Islam claims that it is the perfect eternal faith for mankind.  Divisions have happened and will continue to occur in Islam.  Yet reformation has not happened in nearly 1,400 years and is not going to happen.  In the mind of millions of Muslims, Islam is carved in granite, just the way it is.  No change.  Allah's book is sealed.

About the only universal agreement that exists among Islamic scholars is that every word of the Qur'an is the word of Allah and is not subject to human modification, ever.  The Hadith enjoys a similar sacrosanct standing.  And of course, the faithful Muhammad's conduct as recorded in the Sunna is the model to be emulated.  Hence, one can pick and choose, but one cannot discard or revise any part of the Islamic scripture.  For this reason, a Martin Luther-type reformation has not happened and will not likely ever happen within Islam.

Numerous people have tried it in every imaginable way.  The Mu'tazelis tried it, the Sufis tried it, and hundreds of old and new schools tried it, and they all failed.  Many open-minded Muslim intellectuals have tried reforming Islam, including Muhammad Ali of Egypt, Sayyid al-Qimni, Nasr Abu Zayd, Khalil Abdel-Karim, Abdolkarim Soroush, Mohammed Arkoun, Mohammed Shahrour, and Ahmed Subhy Mansour.  Sheikh Mansour was fired from Al-Azhar University after expressing his Hadith rejector views.  Edip Yuksel, Gamal al-Banna, Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im  Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri,  Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, Ahmed Al-Gubbanchi,  Mahmoud Mohammed Taha, and Faraj Foda, Taha were hanged in 1985 under the sharia regime of Jaafar al-Nimeiri,  and Foda was assassinated in 1992 by al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya.  Persian scholar and historian Ahmad Kasravi was also assassinated by Fada'iyan-e Islam (the devotees of Islam).

Thus, Islam is not reformable for the following primary reasons:

  • At the heart of the problem is the Qur'an, Islam's sacred book, considered as literally perfect and the immutable words of Allah.
  • Islam is a perfect religion.
Qur'an 5:3: Today have I perfected your religious law for you, and have bestowed upon you the full measure of My blessings, and willed that self-surrender unto Me shall be your religion.

How can fallible, limited humans possibly reform or improve the handiwork of the all-knowing, all-wise Author of the Universe?

Freedom of all forms is anathema to Islam, which is squarely based on total submission to the dictates and will of Allah.  Muslims must obey Allah and His Messenger.

Qur'an 33:36: And it behoves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he surely strays off a manifest straying.
  • Violence is part and parcel of Islam.
Qur'an 2: 216: Fighting is ordained for you, even though it be hateful to you; but it may well be that you hate a thing the while it is good for you, and it may well be that you love a thing the while it is bad for you: and God knows, whereas you do not know.
  •  Reforming Islam requires discarding sharia, and also purging the Qur'an itself of enormous suras that are not only patently false, but totally repugnant to a civilized humanity.  This line of thinking, to sanitize Islam, is explicitly forbidden in the Qur'an.
Qur'an 2:85: Do you, then, believe in some parts of the divine writ and deny the truth of other parts? What, then, could be the reward of those among you who do such things but ignominy in the life of this world and, on the Day of Resurrection; they will be consigned to most grievous suffering? For God is not unmindful of what you do.
  • Islam is a super-religion.

Muslims consider Islam a super-religion and the final religion of Allah.  Judaism and Christianity are the only other two religions that are granted a grudging minimal recognition by Islam.  All other religions and those without religion are blasphemy and blasphemous.

In short, Islam is not reformable.  Reforming Islam requires purging of its sacred book, the Qur'an.  In so doing, we have a different religion, not Islam.

Muslim leaders advance to their positions of leadership in Islam Inc.'s numerous subsidiaries by cleverly and ruthlessly navigating their way through the hierarchical labyrinth of cutthroat competition.  Kissing up and demonstrating unconditional loyalty to the higher-ups is required.  Undeviating, total devotion to the charter of the corporation as defined and promoted by the particular subsidiary, while vigilantly exploiting any opportunity for climbing up to the next rung of the ladder of leadership is a prime requisite of staying in the game.

The individuals who attain high leadership positions in Islam have invested their all with great acumen and gone through a tortuous wringer for years to attain their positions.  They deeply covet that position and will do absolutely nothing to rock the boat.

The individual who ascends to a high leadership position must craftily and successfully work his way through a maze of high intrigues for many years.  These leadership positions are greatly coveted, and the person would hardly be inclined to do anything that would endanger his status.  The slightest deviation by any of the Islamic high clergy entails tremendous risks.  The late grand Ayatollah Ali Montazeri of Iran, for instance, who was initially tapped by Khomeini to become his successor, was disgraced and placed under house arrest for daring to voice his concerns about the Islamic government's summary mass execution of political prisoners.

The profession of a clergy is to attract a select segment of men, men who have already significantly bought into the Islamic charter and its methods.  As these men undergo formal indoctrination, a culling process takes place.  Hundreds of thousands of these men, for a variety of reasons, do not advance very far.  A great number of Muslims function in lower positions for the rest of their lives.  They are the drones, so to speak.  They loyally keep working the rank-and-file Muslim believers in villages and towns, making them toe the line and pay their tributes and cash to their parasitic handlers, who continue their highly successful smoke and mirror charade.  A significant number may leave the ordination altogether, for a variety of reasons, and begin earning their living like the rest of the people.

In short, those who claim that they want to reform Islam want to transform it by stripping it of a great many provisions that are anathema to civilized humanity.  These people are trying to make a new religion out of the old, with none of the divine authority that was supposedly bestowed upon Muhammad to form and launch his religion.


Amil Imani

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/is_islam_reformable.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Carson Demands CAIR Probe - Matthew Vadum



by Matthew Vadum

Islamist front group claims innocence.




GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson is demanding the federal government investigate the links that the notorious Council on American-Islamic Relations has to Islamic terrorism.

“The Department of State should designate the Muslim Brotherhood and other organizations that propagate or support Islamic terrorism as terrorist organizations, and fully investigate the Council on American-Islamic Relations as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood and a supporter of terrorism,” Carson wrote in a policy paper in which he also called for a formal declaration of war against Islamic State (a.k.a. ISIS, ISIL, and Daesh).

Although political correctness prevents Democrats and many Republicans from admitting it, it is already well established that CAIR has ties to terrorism.

CAIR, which masquerades as America's largest Muslim civil rights group, is an outpost of international jihadism. It is an enemy propaganda organization whose longstanding ties to the terrorist underworld have been exhaustively documented at DiscoverTheNetworks and elsewhere. CAIR aims to influence America's domestic and foreign policies. CAIR wants to make America safe for Sharia law by bullying Americans into not questioning Islam, a religion-centered ideology that has been generating a body count for 1,400 years.

Accusing critics of so-called Islamophobia, a term invented by Islamists, is CAIR's favorite method of silencing critics and opponents. It is part of a dangerous effort to discourage Americans from thinking freely and arriving at their own conclusions about Islam and mainstream the tenets of Islam in our society. The idea is to eventually make it as difficult and uncomfortable as possible to criticize the faith founded by Muhammad in the seventh century after the birth of Christ. 

In the words of one critic, CAIR exists to undermine law enforcement and U.S. national security. The group's goal “is to create as much self-doubt, hesitation, fear of name-calling, and litigation within police departments and intelligence agencies as possible so as to render such authorities ineffective in pursuing international and domestic terrorist entities.”

CAIR was founded in 1994 by Nihad Awad, Omar Ahmad, and Rafeeq Jaber. The three men, reports DiscoverTheNetworks, “had close ties to the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), which was established by senior Hamas operative Mousa Abu Marzook and founded as Hamas’ public relations and recruitment arm in the United States.”  CAIR opened an office in the nation’s capital with a $5,000 grant from the Marzook-founded Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), a charity that the Bush administration shuttered in 2001 for collecting money “to support the Hamas terror organization.” CAIR called the action “unjust” and “disturbing.” In 2004 Marzook was indicted on racketeering charges related to his pro-Hamas activities. Ahmad was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial.

Ghassan Elashi, a co-founder of the Texas branch of CAIR, was convicted in 2005 of terrorism-related offenses and sentenced to 80 months in prison. CAIR civil rights director Randall Todd Royer was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment on federal weapons and explosives charges in 2004. Bassem Khafagi, a community affairs director at CAIR, was convicted in 2003 on bank and visa fraud charges and agreed to be deported to Egypt. Rabih Haddad, a fundraiser for CAIR’s chapter in Ann Arbor, Mich., was detained in 2001 after overstaying his tourist visa. Authorities found a firearm and boxes of ammunition in his home. He served 19 months in prison and was deported to Lebanon in 2003. CAIR board member Abdurahman Alamoudi was sentenced to 23 years imprisonment for funneling at least $1 million to al-Qaeda. CAIR was founded in 1994 by Nihad Awad, Omar Ahmad, and Rafeeq Jaber. The three men, reports DiscoverTheNetworks, “had close ties to the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), which was established by senior Hamas operative Mousa Abu Marzook and founded as Hamas’ public relations and recruitment arm in the United States.” 

This is just the latest in a series of run-ins that Carson has had with CAIR.

In October, Carson called for the IRS to revoke the tax-exempt status of CAIR after it demanded he withdraw as a candidate. "CAIR is a tax-exempt nonprofit, and the IRS rules explicitly prohibit such groups from intervening in political campaigns on behalf of – or in opposition to – a candidate,” Carson said in an email to supporters.

CAIR, which labeled Carson a bigot and an Islamophobe, was upset because Carson said a Muslim should not be elected president.

“We find it interesting that Dr. Carson seeks to use a federal government agency to silence his critics and wonder if that tactic would be used to suppress First Amendment freedoms should he become president,” CAIR said at the time.

“CAIR is not in violation of any IRS regulation in that we did not ‘participate in’ or ‘intervene in’ any political campaign. We, as mandated by our mission as a civil rights organization, merely expressed the opinion of our community" that Carson's views made him "unfit for public office.”

Obama White House press secretary Josh Earnest attacked Carson at the time saying his statement was “entirely inconsistent with the Constitution.”

“Ultimately, there will be consequences and those views will be taken into account by voters, not only in the primary, but also the general election,” Earnest said.

Anti-Islamism activist Pamela Geller defended Carson. “Electing a Muslim president would be dangerous. We have seen the Islamic pattern of previously moderate Muslims becoming devout and then aiding and abetting jihad. How could we be sure a Muslim president would not do the same?”

But at least three Republican presidential contenders took shots at Carson back then.

“You know, the Constitution specifies there shall be no religious test for public office, and I am constitutionalist,” Cruz said, citing Article VI of the Constitution, which forbids the use of a “religious test” for a candidate who sees public office.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), echoed Cruz, and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Carson's comments were evidence he is “not ready to be commander in chief.”

On Dec. 2 CAIR hastily arranged a press conference while the bodies of 14 American victims of jihadism in San Bernardino, Calif. were still warm in order to push a media narrative that exonerated Islam in the attack.

CAIR, which the United Arab Emirates designated a year ago as a terrorist group, got to work crafting a storyline about the mass-murdering Muslim married couple, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik. As they fashioned a template for lazy, gullible, or sympathetic reporters to embrace, CAIR officials behaved as if Farook and Malik were strange outliers and bad Muslims.

CAIR-LA Executive Director Hussam Ayloush pretended Islam didn't inspire the attack.

"We don't know the motive. Is it work, rage-related? Is it mental illness? Is it extreme ideology? At this point it's really unknown to us and it is too soon for us to speculate."

Two days later, Ayloush changed his tune, blaming America for the shootings. "Let's not forget that some of our own foreign policy, as Americans, as the West, have fueled that extremism," he told CNN's Chris Cuomo. "We are partly responsible. Terrorism is a global problem, not a Muslim problem. And the solution has to be global. Everyone has a role in it."

CAIR definitely has a role in it.


Matthew Vadum is an award-winning investigative reporter and the author of the book, "Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers."

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261144/carson-demands-cair-probe-matthew-vadum

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Obama seeks to restore aid to bodies that recognize 'Palestine' - Hillel Fendel



by Hillel Fendel

Obama/Kerry seek to renew funding to organization that accepts state" not recognized by U.S. – despite law forbidding this.



President Barack Obama
President Barack Obama
Reuters
 
The State Department has asked Congress for nearly a quarter of a billion dollars to fund UNESCO – the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization – even though this is currently against the law.

The law states that the U.S. may not pay dues to any UN organization that grants the PLO full membership as a state – unless such a state has resulted from an Israel-PA negotiated settlement. Since 2011, when UNESCO voted to admit the "State of Palestine" as a member despite the fact that the above condition was not met, the U.S. has in fact not paid dues, in keeping with the law.

However, not only is the State Department now asking for $160 million to cover past dues and $76 million for current dues, it is also asking for a new law enabling the president to waive the law specifically for UNESCO.

Elliott Abrams, Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy and former Assistant Secretary of State, strongly objects. "The old adage 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' would seem to apply here." He explains that the current legislation was for the purpose of deterring "UN organizations from giving the Palestinians the diplomatic victory they wanted - being treated as a state - unless and until they negotiated a peace agreement with Israel. And it worked: since the U.S. move in 2011, other key UN organizations have not followed UNESCO down the PLO's preferred path. The U.S. pays about 22% of the budget of UNESCO and most other UN organs, so the threat of a loss of U.S. dues gets serious attention."

Abrams writes that if the law was to be "repealed or waived, it's logical to expect other UN bodies to see that the Americans are bluffing - and to give the Palestinians full membership. Yet that is clearly where the Obama administration is heading, unless Congress blocks them."

Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) are also against the move. "The [proposal] would undermine over two decades of U.S. policy against funding UN organizations that admit the PLO or other non-state actors as members," they recently wrote to Senate and House leaders.

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has also come out against the move. In a statement, it strongly criticized President Obama for seeking to restore funding to UNESCO, as well as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) for supporting the idea. "We hope this is not due to effective White House pressure on Obama's friend and former colleague, [his] former Special Assistant and now newly-hired ADL national director Jonathan Greenblatt," the ZOA warned. 

"UNESCO has a long history of anti-Israel and anti-American activity, even by the depraved standards of the United Nations," the ZOA notes. It reminds that the U.S. withdrew from UNESCO from 1984-2003, "only rejoining when UNESCO accepted the need to make certain reforms. In fact, it has changed little and UNESCO continues to harm American interests."

"U.S. refunding of UNESCO would send the message that, even when the U.S. acts on its law and principles to penalize international actors for their anti-peace actions, we don't really mean it," says the ZOA.

The Obama administration has responded that it will combine its UNESCO waiver with a condition that the waiver would lapse if another UN body jumps on the bandwagon and grants the PLO full membership.

"This is senseless," writes Abrams. "If we collapse on UNESCO, it will be assumed in the UN that we will eventually collapse on any other UN agency that admits 'Palestine.' … UNESCO's member countries decided to [test] American resolve. The Obama administration wants to show that they were right: we fold under criticism and pressure."

"Congress should 'just say no,'" concludes Abrams, "and send a clear message to every other UN body: there will be no waivers."


Hillel Fendel

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/205044#.VnMNOL-zdQ5

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

As lawmakers clash over refugees, Syrian immigration quietly tops 100,000 since 2012 - Joseph J. Kolb



by Joseph J. Kolb

A proposal to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees to the United States has ignited a bitter debate in Washington, but more than 10 times that number of people from the embattled country have quietly come to America since 2012, according to figures obtained by FoxNews.com.


Some 102,313 Syrians were granted admission to the U.S. as legal permanent residents or through programs including work, study and tourist visas from 2012 through August of this year, a period which roughly coincides with the devastating civil war that still engulfs the Middle Eastern country. Experts say any fears that terrorists might infiltrate the proposed wave of refugees from United Nations-run camps should be dwarfed by the potential danger already here.

“The sheer number of people arriving on all kinds of visas and with green cards, and possibly U.S. citizenship, makes it impossible for our counterterrorism authorities to keep track of them all, much less prevent them from carrying out attacks or belatedly try to deport them,” said Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies.
Numbers obtained from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection show 60,010 Syrian visa holders have entered the U.S. since 2012, including 16,245 this year through August. Additional numbers provided by a Congressional source showed another 42,303 Syrians were granted citizenship or green cards during the same period.

"It is highly unlikely that the 102,313 Syrians who were admitted over the past three years were effectively vetted," said spokesman Ira Mehlman, of the Federation for American Immigration Reform. "Even in countries where we have a strong diplomatic presence, the sheer volume of background checks being carried out precludes the kind of thorough vetting that is necessary."

The Syrians being admitted are coming directly from their homeland, usually through the U.S. visa program, as opposed to the refugees President Obama is seeking to take in through U.N.-run refugee camps. Most have secured legal entry before they arrive.

"Refugees are part of the admitted category," said Jaime Ruiz, spokesman for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. "Their cases are approved prior to arriving into the U.S."

Those who escaped Syria’s grinding civil war, which has killed an estimated 300,000, and made it to the U.S. are more likely to be those with the money and means to access the U.S. immigration bureaucracy, say experts. But even that system is susceptible to fraud.
President Obama’s proposal raised immediate concerns that ISIS, which vowed to infiltrate refugee camps, could use forged documents to enter the U.S. White House assurances that refugees would be carefully screened met with renewed skepticism after it was revealed that terrorist Tashfeen Malik obtained a fiancée visa despite notable red flags. Malik, who together with her husband killed 14 and wounded 21 in a terror attack in San Bernardino, Calif., Dec. 2, listed a phony Pakistani address and reportedly had a history of posting jihadist messages on social media platforms - although FBI Director James Comey disputed that on Wednesday.

Malik’s entry into the U.S., combined with so many Syrians already here, is even more concerning than the proposed refugees, according to Fred Burton, of the global intelligence firm Stratfor.

"I'm more fearful of those currently inside the U.S. predisposed to strike locally as with the San Bernardino model," Burton said. “I think it's reasonable to assume that the U.S. government ran the minimum intelligence traces required at the time of entry."

Mehlman said the same concerns raised in regard to the refugees – mainly that no reliable documents can be issued in a country in complete meltdown – apply to the Syrians already here.

"All civil order has collapsed, and meaningful background checks are impossible,” Mehlman said. “Instead, we rely on cross-checking databases. However, many people with ties to terrorist groups are not in any databases, which means there is no way we can identify them before they arrive here."

A government official who expressed astonishment at such large immigration numbers from a relatively small country, said approximately half are legal permanent residents and the remainder came here on visas, the latter of which remains a point of contentious concern.

Screening of all immigrants and refugees must be tightened, said Rep. Mike McCaul, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.

"This administration has forbid our front line security professionals from more broadly incorporating social media information into the visa application process, something that might have kept this attacker out of our country," said McCaul, R-Texas. "We need more robust vetting and screening of all visa applicants.”

Additional data obtained from CBP found that while five Syrians have been apprehended in 2014 and another five in 2015 attempting to cross over the southern border from Mexico, the northern border escapes public and political scrutiny. In 2014 eight Syrians were apprehended by Border Patrol attempting to cross into the U.S. from Canada. Since 2011, 1,229 Syrians have been granted entry from Canada.


Joseph J. Kolb

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/16/as-lawmakers-clash-over-refugees-syrian-immigration-quietly-tops-100000-since.html?intcmp=hpbt1

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Terrorist tried to murder elementary school students - Ari Soffer



by Ari Soffer

[Editor: Westerners should study this news item to learn how to meet terrorism effectively. It takes alertness, courage, straight judgement and a willingness to act. This is how innocent lives are saved.]



Shot terrorists in Beit Shemesh attack
Shot terrorists in Beit Shemesh attack
Yaakov Lederman/Flash 90
The Jerusalem District Prosecutor on Thursday served an indictment against one of two Arab terrorists who committed a stabbing attack in Beit Shemesh, which left a yeshiva student hospitalized with multiple stab wounds.

Muqdad Alkhikh, a 20-year-old resident of the village of Tzurif near Hevron, is charged with attempted murder and possession of a knife.

Alkhikh traveled to the Ramat Beit Shemesh neighborhood on the morning of October 22 along with an accomplice with the intent to murder as many Jews as possible. They were armed with a total of four knives between them, and were wearing t-shirts bearing the logo of Hamas's military wing, the Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades.

Watch: Alert Beit Shemesh resident helped foil more serious attack


The two terrorists waited at a bus stop for an opportune moment to carry out their attack. When a school bus filled with elementary school-age children stopped to pick up students, the two would-be murderers attempted to board with the intent of slaughtering the children on board, but were prevented from doing so by the driver, who shut the doors and told them it was not a public bus.

Shortly afterwards their plan began to unravel; as worshipers exited a nearby synagogue and a police patrol car - which had been called by a resident who noticed the men acting suspiciously - approached, they pounced on a young man exiting the synagogue and stabbed him repeatedly in his head and chest.

Police then opened fire on the terrorists immediately, killing one and critically injuring Akhikh, bringing the attack to a swift end.


Ari Soffer

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/205066#.VnMJFL-zdQ5

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Bergdahl Court Martial also Indicts Obama - Daniel John Sobieski



by Daniel John Sobiesk

The lies unravel in the Bergdahl case.


The decision to refer the case of Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl to a general court martial on charges of desertion by Gen. Robert B. Abrams, the head of Army Forces Command at Ft. Bragg, N.C., shows there remains at least one general not cowed by President Obama’s purge of command officers deemed insufficiently subservient to his policies of appeasement and unilateral disarmament. As Breitbart reported:
Bergdahl, who was kidnapped by the Taliban following his abandonment of a forward operating base in Afghanistan, was charged this year with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy. If charged with the latter, he could potentially face life in prison. If charged with only desertion, he faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison.
Hopefully he will face life in prison and is lucky a firing squad is not in the cards. It was not what President Obama, who welcomed the parents of deserter Bergdahl to the White House Rose Garden to cheer the alleged good news of the return of the deserter six other soldiers died looking for, wanted to hear. President Obama, who said we traded five Taliban commanders for Bergdahl because we leave no soldier behind, has had no regrets about leaving former Marine Amir Hekmati a prisoner in Iran. Nor did he raise a finger as Andrew Tahmooressi was left to rot in a Mexican prison for taking the wrong exit.  
That Bergdahl was a deserter and a traitor should never have been in doubt, yet it was, partially due to President Obama sending National Security Adviser Susan Rice, who spread the Benghazi video lies on the Sunday talk show circuit, to appear on the June 1, 2014 broadcast of ABC’s “This Week to tell two more lies, that Bergdahl was a good soldier and that trading five top Taliban commanders would not endanger U.S. security. As Breitbart reported:
Regarding the desertion allegations, she said Bergdahl, “served the United States with honor and distinction. And we’ll have the opportunity eventually to learn what has transpired in the past years.”
Rice also said that “assurances relating to the movement, the activities, the monitoring of those detainees [released in exchange for Bergdahl] give us confidence that they cannot and, in all likelihood, will not pose a significant risk to the United States. And that it is in our national interests that this transfer had been made.”
In fact, the Taliban trade of the terrorist equivalent of four-star generals does and has jeopardized U.S. security and was done to exploit Bergdahl’s captivity to help Obama to get the worst of the worst out of Guantanamo to facilitate his campaign pledge of closing the facility. That Bergdahl was a deserter should never have been in doubt, judging by the universal condemnation of those who served with him. Investor’s Business Daily (IBD) noted that fact and editorialized that Obama feared a court-martial because it could lead to him being charged with providing material assistance to a terrorist enemy:
Every one of the men who served with Bergdahl or tried to find him and who have spoken out publicly has said he was clearly a deserter.
Indeed, the uncontestable fact is that Bergdahl walked away from his post in a time of war, leaving his weapon and gear behind. He was not out for a walk to relieve stress or clear his head.
"Bowe Bergdahl deserted during a time of war, and his fellow Americans lost their lives searching for him," former Sgt. Matt Vierkant told CNN. At least six soldiers died in operations looking for Bergdahl.
Fox News analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano has said that Obama dreads a court-martial for desertion, which is what the report might recommend, because questions regarding a trade providing material assistance to a terrorist group could be asked.
"We have a federal statute which makes it a felony to provide material assistance to any terrorist organization," Napolitano said. "It could be money, maps, professional services, any asset whatsoever, (including) human assets."
And there’s the nagging question of whether a ransom for Bergdahl was offered and/or paid. As Fox News has reported, Rep. Duncan Hiunter, R-Calif., has been pursuing whether the Obama administration tried to trade cash for Bergdahl:
The FBI played a central role in making a botched “payment” meant to help secure Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s release last year, according to the office of a House Republican now seeking answers on why the bureau was involved at all in the apparent rescue attempt.
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif. --- who has long questioned whether a ransom of some kind was offered for Bergdahl’s release --- claimed in a recent letter to the Justice Department inspector general that he has learned “non-DoD organizations, led by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), undertook the recovery mission.”
As part of this effort, Hunter told DOJ IG Michael Horowitz, the FBI even went to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and “awaited Bergdahl’s arrival following some form of discussion about facilitating a payment.”
Bergdahl didn’t show -- and ultimately was not released until May when he was traded for five Taliban leaders. Hunter’s chief of staff, Joe Kasper, told FoxNews.com the unsuccessful FBI border visit came after this operation paid an Afghan intermediary, who then ran off with the money.
As Investor’s Business Daily reported in a December 2014 editorial, Hunter had also pursued the ransom payment for Bergdahl issue with outgoing Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel:
"It has been brought to my attention that a payment was made to an Afghan intermediary who 'disappeared' with the money and failed to facilitate Bergdahl's release in return," Hunter wrote in a Nov. 4 letter to outgoing Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.
As Bill Gertz reports in the Washington Free Beacon, Hagel's Nov. 21 response to Hunter was a tad equivocal. The Pentagon "did not make any payment of ransom nor make any attempt to pay ransom for the lease of Sgt. Bergdahl," Hagel said.
Hagel then added that "we have no information that any payment was made to an Afghan intermediary in exchange for facilitating Sgt. Bergdahl's release." OK, so which is it — that no ransom was paid or there's no information that a ransom was paid?
Gertz reports that Hunter also wrote to the Pentagon's inspector general, Jon Rymer, a letter that noted: "Defense officials said the payments were likely part of a $5 million fund that the commander of the U.S. Central Command has at his disposal, which can be used to pay rewards or to purchase information leading to the release of captive."
Was President Obama offering a ransom to get Bergdahl back under the radar, switching to the Gitmo Taliban trade as a Plan B? Bergdahl deserves court martial and imprisonment for his desertion in time of war. The question is just what President Obama deserves for providing material aid and comfort to a terrorist enemy?


Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.    

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/bergdahl_court_martial_also_indicts_obama.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.