Friday, November 4, 2016

Advisers: Trump will move US Embassy to Jerusalem - Erez Linn




by Erez Linn

Mere days ahead of the election, Republican nominee Donald Trump's Israel advisers release statement on Israel • Plan suggests cutting off U.N. Human Rights Council funding, calls two-state solution "not feasible" as long as Palestinian violence persists.



Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
|
Photo credit: GPO

Erez Linn

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=37687

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Iran to infiltrate Revolutionary Guard fighters into US, Europe - Rick Moran




by Rick Moran

The Quds Force is suspected in almost a dozen murders and has been designated a terrorist organization by the Treasury Department for funding terrorism

An Iranian military commander was quoted in a government publication as saying that Revolutionary Guard assets would be placed in the US and Europe "very soon." The purpose of infiltrating these assets is to promote the Islamic Republic's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei and detect plots against the regime originating from overseas.

Washington Free Beacon:
“The whole world should know that the IRGC will be in the U.S. and Europe very soon,” Salar Abnoush, deputy coordinator of Iran’s Khatam-al-Anbia Garrison, an IRGC command front, was quoted as saying in an Iranian state-controlled publication closely tied to the IRGC.
The military leader’s comments come as Iran is spending great amounts of money to upgrade its military hardware and bolster its presence throughout the Middle East and beyond. Iran intends to spend billions to purchase U.S.-made planes that are likely to be converted for use in its air force.
Congressional leaders and others suspect that Iran has used a large portion of the cash windfall it received as a result of last summer’s nuclear agreement to upgrade its fighting capabilities war machine.
“The IRGC is [the] strong guardian of the Islamic Republic,” Abnoush was quoted as saying. “The Fedayeen of Velayat [fighting force] are under the order of Iran’s Supreme leader. Defending and protecting the Velayat [the Supreme Leader] has no border and limit.”
Iranian military and government officials have continued to advocate violence against the U.S. and its allies, despite the nuclear deal and several secret side agreements that gave Iran $1.7 billion in cash.
Iran accuses the U.S. of violating its end of the agreement by not helping the Islamic Republic gain further access to international banks and other markets.
Iran’s frustration over this has led to further accusations about a U.S. plot to foster unrest in the country.
“Our enemies have several projects to destroy our Islamic revolution, and have waged three wars against us to execute their plans against our Islamic Republic,” Abnoush said. “The IRGC has defeated enemies in several fronts. The enemy surrendered and accepted to negotiate with us.”
“And now all of our problems are being solved and our country is becoming stronger in all fronts. Some believe the holy defense ended,” the military leader added. “They are wrong; the holy defense continues, and today, it is more complicated than before.”
This is actually nothing new, except it appears these assets will be permanent. Previously, an arm of the IRGC, the Quds Force, were infiltrated into Europe and other overseas destinations to carry out specific assassination missions. The Quds Force is suspected in almost a dozen murders and has been designated a terrorist organization by the Treasury Department for funding terrorism. The Iranian military leader appears to be altering the mission of the IRGC's extraterritorial forces to include some permanent postings.

More recently, the Quds Force has been engaged in combat with Islamic State forces in Syria. But American experts on Iran are worried about this infiltration of hardened fighters:
Congressional sources and experts involved in tracking Iran’s increased aggression in the region and elsewhere told the Washington Free Beacon that these most recent comments are troubling given Iran’s very public efforts to assassinate political enemies and others across the globe.
“If we look at Iran’s previous terror attacks and assassination campaign around the world, such a statement is alarming,” Saeed Ghasseminejad, an Iran expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told the Free Beacon. “The Islamic Republic has killed hundreds of Iranians and non-Iranians around the world in a coordinated campaign of terror. Iran may decide to restart the project now that many western companies are going to Iran and Iran feels its action in Europe may not be punished strongly.”
The IRGC can expand its operations thanks to the cash windfall Iran received by agreeing to the nuclear deal. It makes you wonder what else the Iranian military can accomplish now that it's flush with cash. 


Rick Moran

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/11/iran_to_infiltrate_revolutionary_guard_fighters_into_us_europe.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

The Sleeper Issue for 9 Million Americans that the Media Will Not Cover - Abraham Katsman




by Abraham Katsman

“FATCA,” the 2010 Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act

Surprisingly large numbers of Americans live abroad. According to State Department figures, nearly 9 million U.S. citizens currently reside in foreign countries. If “Abroad” were a state, it would be America’s 11th most populous. 

Most election years, these voters are not particularly noticeable: they do not vote as a bloc, but are divided according to their respective states of registration; and their vote is not unified, as a variety of issues affect them and their respective countries of residence.

This election, however, may be different. There is a single issue unifying the usually-disparate overseas vote, and likely to turn that vote decidedly Republican: the need to repeal “FATCA,” the 2010 Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. 

If you’ve never heard of FATCA, you are forgiven. FATCA does not affect domestic voters, and won’t show up on any pollster’s list of important issues. But for Americans in foreign countries, FATCA increasingly wreaks havoc with their businesses and access to basic financial services, not to mention their privacy rights. If those Americans were polled, FATCA would surely top the issues list.

What is this benign-sounding law that has Americans abroad so agitated? 

FATCA was initially conceived to combat offshore tax evasion and recoup tax revenues, requiring U.S. citizens, including those living abroad, to report all financial accounts held outside the country—an arguably reasonable purpose and measure. But the Democrats took that simple, targeted goal and addressed it by trapping every American abroad in an insanely expensive regulatory dragnet of questionable legality. 

FATCA doesn’t simply target a few suspected tax cheats; instead, it requires each and every foreign financial institution (“FFI”), including banks, brokerages, pension funds and insurance companies, to annually identify and report to the IRS all clients who are “U.S. persons” (a broad category, including businesses where even one American has signature authority on a financial account), and to turn over to the IRS detailed information on each client’s total assets, account balances, transactions, account numbers and other personal identifying information. Any noncomplying institution faces draconian penalties, including the withholding of 30% of U.S.-sourced income. 

In essence, FATCA coerces FFIs to become IRS lackeys, making them conduct wholesale warrantless seizures of Americans’ private financial information on behalf of the IRS, without any reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The extent of the information collected and disclosed to the IRS is far more intrusive than would be tolerated by law-abiding Americans at home. By having the FFIs do their dirty work, the IRS sidesteps issues of constitutional violations and privacy rights of American accountholders. 

Furthermore, the FFIs must comply with these requirements at their own significant expense. As FATCA regulations have metastasized into hundreds of dense, complex pages that must be followed to the letter by each individual institution (mostly in non-English-speaking countries), implementation and administration costs have skyrocketed, and are projected to run over $100 billion worldwide. 

All of this effort will allow the IRS to collect—get ready—some $790 million annually (according to optimistic estimates), enough to fund the federal government for perhaps 90 minutes. 

Of course, many FFIs have figured out how to avoid spending those thousands of dollars per U.S. customer in order to comply with FATCA: they jettison their American clients. Financial institutions worldwide are slamming their doors shut on Americans and their businesses, denying even basic financial services such as checking, mortgage and brokerage services. American customers are simply not worth the hassle. 

Furthermore, as even a single American signature on a corporate bank account triggers FATCA reporting obligations, Americans abroad now face discrimination from foreign employers and the loss of job opportunities and promotions in multi-national corporations seeking to avoid expensive FATCA compliance. FATCA is forcing Americans operating overseas businesses requiring foreign financial services to choose between citizenship and livelihood, leading to a record-breaking surge in renunciations of U.S. citizenship. Thanks to FATCA, American citizenship, once prized and envied, is becoming an albatross.

This is inexcusable. Americans currently living abroad, like their compatriots at home, are overwhelmingly honest, productive, hard-working citizens. They are not 9 million money-laundering criminals. Yet, FATCA assigns these Americans a presumption of guilt.

FATCA also mandates a new IRS database for that collected sensitive information, plus the hiring of 800 new IRS agents (there goes another $100 million annually). Many resent giving the IRS additional power and control over private information, particularly at a time the IRS has shown itself willing to abuse its power for political purposes.

Of course, FATCA data collection and wholesale disclosures to the IRS also expose Americans’ private financial information to certain countries’ unscrupulous governments, not to mention the goldmine created for identity thieves.

The Democrats own FATCA. They rammed it through the 2010 Democrat-controlled Congress by a razor-thin margin as a revenue accounting gimmick, supposedly offsetting tens of billions of dollars of pork-barrel spending. It was passed without a single Republican vote, and without the usually-mandatory Congressional cost/benefit analysis, floor debate or amendment process. It shows. 

Republicans, by contrast, continue to fight FATCA on multiple fronts. Spurred by Republicans Overseas International, leading Republicans filed a federal lawsuit challenging FATCA on constitutional grounds (currently winding its way through the appeals process), and the 2016 Republican Party Platform calls for FATCA’s repeal. Congressman Mark Meadows (R-NC) recently introduced a bill to repeal FATCA, and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is planning FATCA-related hearings. Republicans in Israel succeeded in postponing Knesset approval of FATCA’s implementation on grounds of privacy violations and discrimination based on national origin, taking these arguments all the way to the Israeli Supreme Court.

The Democrats, meanwhile, have been AWOL from the fight to repeal FATCA, and voters abroad know it.

Of all the laws enacted by the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats, FATCA stands out for its mindless inefficiency, counterproductivity, and bureaucratic abuse. Nine million Americans abroad are feeling its effects, and they are not happy. Expect them to vote accordingly.


Abe Katsman is an American attorney and political writer living in Israel. He serves as Counsel to Republicans Overseas Israel.
Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/11/the_sleeper_issue_for_9_million_americans_that_the_media_will_not_cover.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

FBI said to be investigating everyone in Clinton's inner circle - Yoni Hersch, Erez Linn, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff




by Yoni Hersch, Erez Linn, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff

Hat tip: Dr. Jean-Charles Bensoussan

FBI has five open investigations into the Democratic presidential candidate and will look into all her key advisers • President Barack Obama urges African-Americans to vote for Clinton • New Reuters/Ipsos poll gives Clinton 6% lead over Trump.


Yoni Hersch, Erez Linn, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=37653&hp=1

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Hillary's Castro Endorsement - Umberto Fontova




by Umberto Fontova

When Stalinist monsters bestow their blessing.

“It’s Hillary’s hour!...The only hope of defeating Donald Trump is Hillary Clinton…the difference between the two candidates is vast. Barack Obama did not exaggerate when he claimed that she was better prepared to be a U.S. President than even he was—or was her husband Bill Clinton.” (Stalinist Cuba’s KGB-founded and mentored media organ Cubadebate, Oct. 15, 2016.)
There was a day when winning a ringing endorsement from communist mass-murdering, terror -sponsors who craved (and came within a whisker) of nuking your nation would NOT be considered an asset for a U.S. Presidential candidate. 
In any nation of the world–and even in the U.S. during normal times–Donald Trump would find himself either in prison or in a mental institution!”
There was a day when being threatened with prison and torture (even figuratively) by an enemy Stalinist regime that jailed and tortured political prisoners (many of them U.S. citizens) at a higher rate than Stalin during the Great Terror would be considered an enormous asset for a U.S. Presidential candidate.  

But the ringing communist endorsement for Hillary Clinton gets even “better:” 
Hillary Clinton is our only hope of detaining barbarism!”
So warns the eunuch scribe for a totalitarian regime that murdered more Cubans in its first three years in power than Hitler murdered Germans during his first six– and in the process converted a highly-civilized, immigrant-swamped nation into a slum/sewer with the Hemisphere’s highest suicide rate, which is ravaged by tropical diseases, where tens of thousands have died trying to escape, where alley cats constitute a delicacy and where ox-carts represent luxury transportation.
“On a few occasions Trump has even suggested the assassination of Hillary Clinton!”
So warn the notorious assassins of suddenly inconvenient colleagues ranging from Camilo Cienfuegos to Tony De la Guardia to Manuel “Barbarroja’ Pineiro. Yes, the Castro regime “devoured its own children” even more voraciously than even Lenin and Stalin’s.
“The news are dominated by revelations—some on video—showing Trump’s obscenity and male chauvinist conduct—along with his treatment of women as sex objects!”
So warns the Stalinist regime that jailed and tortured 35,150 Cuban women for political crimes, a totalitarian horror utterly unknown in the Western Hemisphere until the Castro brothers and Che Guevara took power. Some of these Cuban ladies suffered twice as long in Castro’s Gulag as Alexander Solzhenitsyn suffered in Stalin’s.

Their prison conditions were described by former political prisoner Maritza Lugo. “The punishment cells measure 3 feet wide by 6 feet long. The toilet consists of an 8 inch hole in the ground through which cockroaches and rats enter, especially in cool temperatures the rat come inside to seek the warmth of our bodies and we were often bitten. The suicide rate among women prisoners was very high.”

On Christmas Eve of 1961 a Cuban woman named Juana Diaz Figueroa spat in the face of the executioners who were binding and gagging her. Castro and Che Guevara's KGB-trained secret police had found her guilty of feeding and hiding “bandits” (Cuban rednecks who took up arms to fight the Stalinist theft of their land to build Soviet–style Kolkhozes.) When the blast from Castroite firing squad demolished her face and torso Juana was six months pregnant.

“They started by beating us with twisted coils of electric cable,” recalls former Cuba political prisoner Ezperanza Pena from exile today. “I remember Teresita on the ground with all her lower ribs broken. Gladys had both her arms broken. Doris had her face cut up so badly from the beatings that when she tried to drink, water would pour out of her lacerated cheeks.”

“On Mother’s Day they allowed family visits,” recalls Manuela Calvo from exile today.” But as our mothers and sons and daughters were watching, we were beaten with rubber hoses and high-pressure hoses were turned on us, knocking all of us the ground floor and rolling us around as the guards laughed and our loved-ones screamed helplessly.”

“When female guards couldn’t handle us male guards were called in for more brutal beatings. I saw teen-aged girls beaten savagely, their bones broken, their mouths bleeding,” recalls Polita Grau.

Thousands upon thousands of Cuban women have also drowned, died of thirst or have been eaten alive by sharks attempting to flee the regime founded by the folks who recently endorsed Hillary Clinton.  This from a nation formerly richer than half the nations of Europe and deluged by immigrants from same.

Remember how Donald Trump was taken greatly to task by the media for not quickly repudiating David Duke’s (so-called) endorsement?

Well, we certainly look for the media to take Hillary Clinton similarly to task for not instantly repudiating the endorsement of mass-jailing, mass-torturing, mass-murdering Stalinists.

After all, recalling the “sticks and stones can break my bones” riddle of our childhood, David Duke’s crimes” consist of words (“hate-speech.”) Whereas the (literal) sticks, stones--and chains, manacles, bullwhips and bullets--of the fine folks so enthusiastically endorsing Hillary Clinton have caused untold suffering to hundreds of thousands of people.    


Umberto Fontova

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264684/hillarys-castro-endorsement-humberto-fontova

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Documented: Obama's "Traditional Muslim Bias" against Christians - Raymond Ibrahim




by Raymond Ibrahim

Those Arabs from nations with large Christian populations or with Christian names failed the Obama team's "religious tests."

  • The Obama government's bias against Mideast Christians closely resembles the traditional bias Christian minorities experience at the hands of Muslim governments.
  • When inviting scores of Muslim representatives, the State Department has been called out at least twice for denying visas to solitary Christian representatives.
  • When a few persecuted Iraqi Christians crossed the border into the U.S., they were thrown in prison for months and then sent back to the countries persecuting them, possibly to be enslaved, raped, or murdered.
  • When the Nigerian government waged an offensive against Boko Haram -- another Islamic group that regularly slaughters and rapes Christians and burn their churches -- and killed some of its terrorists, John Kerry fumed and called for the "human rights" of the jihadis.
  • It is against Islamic law to side with "infidels" against Muslims.

Almost a year ago, U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama called the suggestion that the U.S. give preference to Christian refugees over Muslim refugees "shameful." "That's not American. That's not who we are. We don't have religious tests to our compassion," he added loftily.

Now, WikiLeaks has released a 2008 email which discusses who should fill top staff positions should Obama win the presidency: it clearly proves that the Obama administration has long used "religious tests" -- but to discriminate against Christians in favor of Muslims

The email was sent from former New York Solicitor General Preeta D. Bansal to Michael Froman, a classmate of Obama's at Harvard and a member of the 12-person advisory board for the Obama campaign's transition team. The key passage reads:
In the candidates for top jobs, I excluded those with some Arab American background but who are not Muslim (e.g., George Mitchell). Many Lebanese Americans, for example, are Christian. In the last list (of outside boards/commissions), most who are listed appear to be Muslim American, except that a handful (where noted) may be Arab American but of uncertain religion (esp. Christian).
In other words, those Arabs from nations with large Christian populations or with Christian names failed the Obama team's "religious tests."

The discrimination is not limited just to top or prestigious jobs. Even in life and death situations, the Obama administration massively favors Muslims over Christians. Despite the U.S. government's acknowledgement that ISIS is committing genocide against Christians in Syria -- meaning that Christians, not Sunni Muslims, are being targeted for torture, slavery and death due solely to their religious identity -- statistics repeatedly show that the Obama administration has taken in a vastly disproportionate number of Sunni Muslims into the U.S.

When war erupted in Syria in 2011, approximately 75% of the population was Sunni Muslim and 10% Christian. If the U.S. were to admit Christian refugees in proportion to their population in Syria, about 1,260 Christians would by now have been resettled in the U.S. -- when in fact only 68 were. Sunni Muslims are only 75% percent of Syria's population but 99% of those received by the U.S.


Even the 1951 Refugee Convention lists five criteria that qualify applicants for refugee status: persecution for reasons of religion, race, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group. Christians very clearly fit one of the criteria -- religious persecution -- whereas most of the Sunni Muslims entering America do not.

This discrepancy is no secret. Most recently, in an FOIA lawsuit filed by a federal appellate court against the Department of Homeland Security, Judge Daniel Manion wrote about his
"concern about the apparent lack of Syrian Christians as a part of immigrants from that country.... Perhaps 10 percent of the population of Syria is Christian, and yet less than one-half of one percent of Syrian refugees admitted to the United States this year are Christian.... To date, there has not been a good explanation for this perplexing discrepancy."
Far from being an aberration, the WikiLeaks revelation is simply the latest indicator that the Obama administration favors Muslims over Christians:
  • When inviting scores of Muslim representatives, the State Department has been called out at least twice for denying visas to solitary Christian representatives.
  • When a few persecuted Iraqi Christians crossed the border into the U.S., they were thrown in prison for several months and then sent back to the countries persecuting them, possibly to be enslaved, raped, or murdered.
  • When the Nigerian government waged a strong offensive against Boko Haram -- another Islamic group that regularly slaughters and rapes Christians and burn their churches -- and killed some of its terrorists, John Kerry fumed and called for the "human rights" of the jihadis.
  • When Egypt's persecuted Coptic Christians planned on joining Egypt's anti-Muslim Brotherhood revolution back in 2013, the U.S. said no.
  • When persecuted Iraqi and Syrian Christians asked for arms to join the opposition fighting ISIS, D.C. refused.
  • When the UN Security Council held a meeting to discuss the genocide against Christians and other minorities, although "many high level delegations from UN member states addressed the Security Council meeting, some at the Foreign Minister level, the United States failed to send ... a high ranking member of the State Department."

When a few persecuted Iraqi Christians crossed the border into the U.S., they were thrown in prison for several months and then sent back to the countries persecuting them, possibly to be enslaved, raped, or murdered. Pictured above: Members of California's Iraqi Christian community and their supporters protest the months-long detention of Iraqi Christian asylum-seekers at the Otay Mesa detention center. (Image source Al Jazeera video screenshot)

Perhaps the most significant aspect of all this is that the Obama government's bias against Mideast Christians closely resembles the traditional bias Christian minorities experience at the hands of Muslim governments. There are active and passive persecutors of Christians in the Muslim world. Muslim criminals, mobs, and terrorists actively persecute Christians, while Muslim governments passively enable them: when Muslims kidnap, rape, or kill Christians and destroy their churches, Muslim authorities rarely if ever do anything about it (it is against Islamic law to side with "infidels" against Muslims). Christian minorities in nations such as Egypt and Pakistan know this well. Muslim governments seldom if ever hire Christians to positions of authority (Islamic law bans the intentional placement of an "infidel" over a Muslim).


From preferring Muslims over Christians for positions of authority, to preferring Muslim refugees over Christian minorities - who are currently experiencing genocide -- the Obama government's bias against Christian "infidels" and favor for Muslims is identical to the behavior of Muslim governments.

To use the president's words, it is the Obama administration's own policies that are "shameful," that are "not American," and that do not represent "who we are."


Raymond Ibrahim is the author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christians (published by Regnery with Gatestone Institute, April 2013).

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9244/obama-bias-against-christians

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

America's "Arab Spring" - Nonie Darwish




by Nonie Darwish

Promoting Islam also seems to have been a major factor in Obama's equation for America

  • President Obama appears to have been told that if all these secular dictators could be brought down, a magnificent Arab Spring would blossom. This was, it seems, precisely the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood: to get America's help to topple the dictatorships -- then mostly military and secular -- but then to replace them with themselves, Islamists.
  • After Egypt took down the Muslim Brotherhood, the goal of establishing the Islamic Caliphate in Egypt simply moved to Syria, the only Arab nation where a secular Muslim leader had survived the Arab Spring.
  • Promoting Islam also seems to have been a major factor in Obama's equation for America. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton followed suit, hosting several closed-door conferences on "Defamation of Religion," to suppress free speech and internationally criminalize any criticism of Islam with fines and prison. She would rather blame terrorism on free speech than on the violent tenets of Islam.
  • This escalating subversion should be reason enough for all Western democratic countries permanently to part company with the United Nations. Its history of corruption is neither new nor surprising, or that it is run anti-democratic "club of dictators" whose interests are opposite to ours.
The goals of U.S. President Barack Obama in the Middle East ended the rule of most of the "secular" Arab leaders in the area. His views may have come, partly at least, from propaganda on why Muslim people supposedly lacked freedom there. Obama appears to have been told that if all these secular dictators could be brought down, a magnificent Arab Spring would blossom.

This was, it seems, precisely the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood: to get America's help to topple the dictatorships -- then mostly military and secular -- but then to replace them with themselves, Islamists.

The goals of the Muslim Brotherhood happened to be in tune with Obama's goals in the Middle East. Obama's first major presidential speech took place in Cairo before a large number of Islamic sheikhs and members of the Muslim Brotherhood. They were empowered and given legitimacy by Obama. A scorned Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak did not attend; thus, with the blessing of the United States, the Muslim Brotherhood's rise to power in Egypt was begun.

Obama's first major presidential speech, on June 4, 2009, took place in Cairo before a large number of Islamic sheikhs and members of the Muslim Brotherhood. They were empowered and given legitimacy by Obama. A scorned Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak did not attend; thus, with the blessing of the United States, the Muslim Brotherhood's rise to power in Egypt was begun. (Image source: White House)

Today, ordinary Egyptians link the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood directly to the Obama administration. Cairo was about to become the capital of the new Islamic Caliphate if Egyptians had not, after a year, come out in the millions to stop it.

The Obama administration did not appear happy with the counter-revolution, and the rise to power of Egypt's current president, General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, and began doing everything it could to thwart it.

Egypt was back to square one: a military dictatorship that it had once convinced the West was the cause of its oppression.

America's "Arab Spring" adventure -- to topple secular dictators to bring about democracies -- did not exactly work as planned. Bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East failed miserably, but the tyranny of the Caliphate, which had been the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood in the first place, was building. After Egypt took down the Muslim Brotherhood, the goal of establishing the Islamic Caliphate in Egypt simply moved to Syria, the only Arab nation where a secular Muslim leader had survived the Arab Spring.

Promoting Islam also seems to have been a major factor in Obama's equation for America. Before Obama started to implement his promise to "change America as we know it," he first had to change the Middle East as they knew it. Many of the changes over which he presided were in harmony with the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood. Its motto is: "Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."

But while the Muslim brotherhood has been made illegal in Egypt, the Obama administration still refuses to label the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. Under Obama, Islam became untouchable, not open to any kind of criticism. He even claimed that "Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton followed suit, and hosted several closed-door conferences in Washington and London on "Defamation of Religion," to suppress free speech and internationally criminalize any criticism of Islam with fines and prison.

Even in a recent debate, Clinton stated, "Islam was always part of American history -- even since the Revolutionary War."

She would rather blame terrorism on free speech than on the violent tenets of Islam.

Only a person from the Middle East could understand the immense value of such a gift to the goals of Islamic jihadists in America.

It is unfortunate that many Americans apparently still do not know that Islamists rewrite history in order to claim that any land they wish to conquer was originally Islamic or founded by Muslims -- even though historically Islam did not exist until seventh century, hundreds of years after Judaism and Christianity.

Today, Muslims have re-written their history books to claim that Muslims originally built the ancient Jewish Biblical sites, and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has bowed to the wishes of Qatar and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) -- a bloc of 56 Islamic nations plus "Palestine" -- to back up this fiction. UNESCO recently passed resolutions obscenely declaring ancient Jewish Biblical monuments -- such as Hebron's Cave of the Patriarchs, Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem and Jerusalem's Temple Mount, home of the great ancient Jewish Temples -- Islamic sites.

Which country will be next? This escalating subversion should be reason enough for all Western democratic countries permanently to part company with the United Nations. Its history of corruption is neither new nor surprising, or that it is run anti-democratic "club of dictators" whose interests are opposite to ours.

Jihadists today are stating that they also have a claim over Italy, Greece, and Spain -- and now America. Obama and Hillary Clinton actually just solidified such claims for future Muslim history books about who actually built America.

Americans have a choice: they can either keep on empowering Islam, and helping extremist Muslims infiltrate into the American system -- even as there is a resolution in the House of Representatives to shut down all criticism of Islam -- or they can end the gamble of the current administration, which seems bent on changing America forever by allowing the worldwide empowerment of Islam. They can continue the Islamist "Arab Spring" revolution to change "America as we know it" or preserve the freedoms of the American republic.
It has recently become clear through WikiLeaks that the American system is indeed rigged and that Washington DC has turned into a swamp; or more accurately an "Arab Spring" swamp.

Egypt, on a much smaller scale, had to face such a choice in 2012-13, between life under the values of the Muslim Brotherhood or a life under a sliver of hope for a democracy, which Islam, under its laws, can never allow.

Both Egyptians and the West sorely need to understand that Islamic law, sharia, does not permit anything other than an Islamic government under the rule of Islamic law. Consequently, only military force can stand against sharia tyranny. The Muslim Brotherhood had proven once again that the only way out of Islamic theocracies is through military dictatorships.

A head-on collision over the future of America is underway. Many Americans still do not understand the magnitude of what is at stake, but many Islamists do: they are lying in wait, hoping to return to their budding Caliphate.
 
 
Nonie Darwish, a Middle East Expert, is the author of Wholly Different: Why I Chose Biblical Values over Islamic Values."
Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9245/america-arab-spring

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

From Higher Ed to Political Indoctrination - Jack Kerwick




by Jack Kerwick

Parents who plan on refinancing their homes to send their children to college should instead consider trade school.

Parents who plan on refinancing their homes in order to send their children off to college should instead consider encouraging them to specialize in a trade.

Speaking as a Ph.D. in philosophy who has spent the last 17 years teaching at the college level, I’m perhaps the last person from whom advice of this sort is expected.  But it is precisely because of my familiarity with academia that I beseech the college bound and their enablers—I mean their supporters—to revisit their plans. 

Whether one regards a post-secondary institution as a means to either a remunerative profession or a genuine education, the tragic fact of the matter is that the contemporary academic world is about as politicized a cultural institution as any.  More specifically, it is a bastion of Political Correctness, a decidedly leftist ideology that tolerates no competition. 

For the last 11 years, Professor Duke Pesta, who is currently an associate professor of English at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, has taught literature at a range of colleges.  At the outset of each semester, he would quiz his students on their knowledge of American and Western history.  What he found is that the “overwhelming” number of them believed that slavery—an institution, mind you, that is as old as humanity itself, was practiced in virtually every society the planet over, and that lasted only some 87 years in the United States—was an exclusively American phenomenon

“Most of my students could not tell me anything meaningful about slavery outside of America,” Pesta told The College Fix.  His students “are convinced that slavery was an American problem that more or less ended with the Civil War and they are very fuzzy about slavery prior to the Colonial era.”

“Their entire education about slavery,” he adds, “was confined to America.”

Yet it isn’t just students who display an astonishing ignorance of slavery.  Over at Boston University, Saida Grundy, an Assistant Professor of sociology and African-American Studies, tweeted that slavery is “a white people…thing.”

Grundy didn’t stop there.  She asks: “is white people’s new deflection from dealing with slavery that ‘all races have had slaves’ thing? is this the new ‘#AllLivesMatter’?”

Professor Grundy added other enlightening tweets:

“for the record, NO race outside of Europeans had a system that made slavery a *personhood* instead of temporary condition;

“there is also no race except Europeans who kidnapped and transported human beings in order to enslave them and their offspring for life;

“before Europeans invented it as such, slavery was not a condition that was de facto inherited from parent to child.”

In case white folks couldn’t follow the thrust of her rant, Grundy offers a summation of her sophisticated position:

“in other words, deal with your white sh*t, white people. slavery is a *YALL* thing.”

In addition to assigning blame for slavery solely to white Europeans, Grundy claimed that “white masculinity” is “THE problem for america’s colleges.” 

Over at the University of Pittsburgh, students who were distributing pro-Donald Trump materials were harassed and attacked. The Trump supporters were accused of backing a “racist” candidate who espouses “hate speech.”  They were greeted by chants of “f**k the white male patriarchy” and, eventually, physical aggression. 

One of the victims said that “my campus shouldn’t be a place where my friends and I are fearful for having opposing opinions.” 

These students were accosted by other students.  Students elsewhere, however, have had professors with which to contend. 

At the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), a political science professor, Michael Chwe, wrote in a blog post for Princeton University Press that “the danger to democracy itself” is posed by “Trump supporters[.]”  This “danger” is “real and must be confronted.”  Chwe maintains that Trump and his supporters are “the greatest danger to democracy since World War II, even perhaps since the Civil War[.]” 

Chwe thinks that had “we” done “a better and earlier job with confronting, as opposed to accommodating, white and male privilege…we might not have reached this situation [the Trump phenomenon].” “We” must set our sights on “combatting” these forms of “privilege” now, though, if we hope to divert “democracy away from self-destruction.” 

And it isn’t just faculty in the humanities and liberal arts that can’t resist injecting their politics into the classroom.  A math professor at Mount Holyoke College, an all-female school, was recently captured on video launching into an anti-Trump/pro-Clinton tirade in class.  While he never referred to either candidate by name, Peter Rosnick’s choice for president was plain.  This election, Rosnick said, is the “scariest” that he’s ever witnessed.  He told his students that they should “vote for someone who thinks women are full and capable and responsible and intelligent beings who should not be the object of, um, should not be objectified.”

Rosnick also prescribed his students to vote “for whoever you want, but vote for somebody who respects the fact that this is a country built on immigrants—that this is a country that couldn’t, that wouldn’t be what it is if it wasn’t for bringing immigrants into our nation and respecting them and respecting what they bring to our country.”

At least one of Rosnick’s students was less than enthused over his proselytizing efforts.  Speaking on condition of anonymity, this student told The College Fix that she found “it highly inappropriate for a math teacher to use my class time to try to tell me who to vote for.” 

Indeed.  

But this, unfortunately, is hardly an anomaly in 2016.  Thus, parents should think hard before divesting themselves of tens and tens of thousands of dollars so that their children can become targets of political indoctrination. 


Jack Kerwick

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264698/higher-ed-political-indoctrination-jack-kerwick

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Erdogan's Neo-Ottoman Plans - Burak Bekdil




by Burak Bekdil

"Let us see how your Islamist friend [Erdogan] behaves after crushing the secular establishment." — The author to a friend, 2004.

  • To insist on the borders Turkey accepted in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne "is the greatest injustice to be done to the country and to the nation." — Turkey's President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, October 19, 2016.
  • Erdogan's newfound claims seem to refer not only to wish to regain hegemony to the west (Greece) but also about the south (Syria) and the southeast (Iraq). Turkey evidently wishes to be part of an Iraqi- and Kurdish-led offensive against Mosul, controlled since 2014 by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
Sipping his ouzo at a café in Athens on a warm afternoon in 2004, a Greek diplomat friend smiled and said:
"You are wrong about Erdogan. He will reform Turkey's democratic culture, align it with the European Union, strengthen its ties with NATO and pursue a pro-peace policy in this part of the world. Meanwhile he will crush the secular army establishment and Turkey will no longer be a threat to any of its neighbors."
I said: "Let us see how your Islamist friend [Erdogan] behaves after crushing the secular establishment."
Twelve years later, I still enjoy our peaceful ouzo sessions with the same Greek friend. But things do not look equally peaceful between Turkey and its neighbors, including Greece.

Speaking at a public rally on October 22, President Erdogan said that "We did not accept our borders voluntarily." He went on to say, "At the time [when the current borders were drawn] we may have agreed to it but the real mistake is to surrender to that sacrifice." What does all that mean?

On October 19, Erdogan spoke of Turkey being constrained by foreign powers who "aim to make us forget our Ottoman and Seldjuk history," when Turkey's forefathers held territory stretching across Central Asia and the Middle East. His words came at a time when pro-government media was publishing maps depicting Ottoman borders encompassing an area that included Iraq's second largest city, Mosul, a former Ottoman province.

On the same day, he said:
"[In 1914] Our territories were as large as 2.5 million square kilometers, and after nine years at the time of the Lausanne Treaty it diminished to 780,000 square kilometres.... To insist on [the 1923 borders] is the greatest injustice to be done to the country and to the nation. While everything is changing in today's world, we cannot see to preserving our status of 1923 as a success."
Erdogan's newfound claims seem to refer not only to wish to regain hegemony to the west (Greece) but also about the south (Syria) and the southeast (Iraq). Turkey evidently wishes to be part of an Iraqi- and Kurdish-led offensive against Mosul, controlled since 2014 by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Turkey, it appears, would like to be part of the operation primarily to make sure that post-ISIS Mosul is "Sunni enough" and not Shiite.

In Syria, Turkey is targeting Kurds with the help of its allies, the semi-jihadist Islamists under the umbrella force of the Free Syrian Army (FSA). The Turkish military launched its land incursion into Syria on August 24 and has been controlling the area ever since, supporting from behind various Sunni Islamist factions under the SFA. On October 20, one day after Erdogan spoke of the "injustice of the 1923 borders," the Turkish military said its warplanes bombed U.S.-allied Kurdish fighters in northern Syria.

These bombings took place as Kurdish fighters were advancing against ISIS militants near Afrin, a city about 40 kilometers northwest of Aleppo. Turkey said its attacks killed 160 to 200 Kurdish fighters, but a predominantly Kurdish political party in Turkey, the HDN, said 14 people, including four civilians, were killed.

The move not only exposed the allied campaign against ISIS to unforeseen operational risks but also could create military tensions between Turkey and Syria, the latter supported by Iran and Russia. The Syrian government quickly warned that further Turkish planes in Syrian airspace will be "brought down by all means available."

On October 22, local sources informed the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights that the Turkish shelling was still continuing on areas controlled by the Syrian Democratic Forces. On that day alone Turkish forces launched more than 200 tank and artillery shells and missiles.

Erdogan's pro-Ottoman revisionism may appeal to tens of millions of Turks' newfound pride, to their yearning for their forefathers' glorious past, and may even come in the form of more votes for the already popular president. But this irredentist sentiment, especially if further supported by military hardware, will only make a turbulent region even more turbulent -- including Turkish territory.


In 2013, The Economist published on its cover a photomontage of Ottoman Sultan Selim III and Turkey's then Prime Minister (now President) Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to illustrate Erdogan's growing autocratic tendencies (left). In 2015, Erdogan himself posed in his palace with the costumed "16 warriors" that guard him, who are meant to represent the 16 polities in Turkic history, including the Mughal empire, Timurid empire and Ottoman empire (right).

Burak Bekdil, based in Ankara, is a Turkish columnist for the Hürriyet Daily and a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9254/erdogan-irredentism

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Thursday, November 3, 2016

Obama DOJ: Handmaiden of Clinton Corruption - Joseph Klein




by Joseph Klein

How the Clinton machine is perverting U.S. federal law enforcement to shield Hillary.




The Obama Department of Justice has been corruptly aiding and abetting the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, to escape legal accountability for her actions. From Attorney General Loretta Lynch on down through the Justice Department’s political ranks, the Department has blocked the FBI from searching for the truth and following the evidence of potential criminality to its logical conclusion. Whether it is Hillary’s use of a private e-mail server while serving as Secretary of State or her involvement in the pay-for-play Clinton enterprise known as the Clinton Foundation, the Obama administration is applying a banana republic-style double standard to pervert justice and the rule of law in order to shield her.

Lynch and President Obama were reportedly furious with FBI Director James Comey for sending a letter to Congress on October 28th indicating that new evidence potentially pertinent to the e-mail case had come to light, which required further investigation. This evidence consisted of a batch of e-mails FBI investigators had found on one or more computers belonging to Anthony Weiner, Clinton confidante Huma Abedin’s estranged husband, while they were searching for evidence in an unrelated case involving Weiner’s alleged sexting to an underage girl. Comey sent his letter after months of agonizing over his previous decision to let Hillary off the hook in the e-mail case last July. He was said by a source close to him to have been particularly disturbed by the mounting number of resignation letters from FBI agents who felt betrayed by that decision.

Department of Justice officials had leaned on Comey not to send the letter to Congress, claiming that it would violate Department protocols and procedures against taking any action that could be perceived as interfering with the upcoming presidential election. To his credit, Comey ignored the Department officials’ objections, claiming he had an obligation to keep the Congress and the public informed of any potentially significant new developments in the case.

Democrats, who had lavished praise on Comey for his July decision, lashed out at Comey for sending his letter updating Congress. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid went so far as to make the baseless charge that Comey may have violated the law by informing Congress, because, Reid argued, he appeared to be taking sides in an election. The disgraced former Attorney General Eric Holder, held in contempt of Congress for withholding information relating to the Fast and Furious scandal, said about Comey’s action, “I fear he has unintentionally and negatively affected public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI. It is up to the director to correct his mistake — not for the sake of a political candidate or campaign but in order to protect our system of justice and best serve the American people.”

Since when has Holder been genuinely concerned about protecting our system of justice and best serving the American people? Holder had already contributed to the erosion of public trust, with his blatant politicization of the Obama Department of Justice.  As evidenced by the Obama Department of Justice’s handling of the multiple FBI investigations involving Hillary Clinton, the Department has continued its slide into the muck of corruption. It interfered with both the normal course of criminal investigations and the election by stacking the deck in Hillary’s favor, ensuring that no indictment would occur to derail her path to succeed Obama and preserve his legacy.

First, the Department of Justice reportedly refused to empanel a grand jury in either the e-mail case or in connection with the FBI’s investigation of the Clinton Foundation pay-for-play allegations. “The problem here is this investigation was never a real investigation,” former assistant FBI director James Kallstrom said. “That’s the problem. They never had a grand jury empanelled, and the reason they never had a grand jury empanelled, I’m sure, is Loretta Lynch would not go along with that.”

Kallstrom’s belief that Lynch acted to influence the results of the FBI probes in Hillary’s favor is buttressed by Lynch’s 30 minute private tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton shortly before FBI Director Comey faced the cameras on July 5th with his exculpatory announcement.

Second, at least five immunity agreements were handed out in the e-mail case, including to Hillary’s lawyer and confidante Cheryl Mills and to Platte River Networks’ Paul Combetta.  It appears that Combetta had previously lied to government investigators – a crime in itself – while trying to cover up the fact that he had evidently Bleachbited e-mails to delete them, even though they had been subject to a previously issued Congressional subpoena. The immunity agreements garnered nothing in return, but had the effect of blocking access to the computer devices of the immunity beneficiaries in the FBI’s separate Clinton Foundation investigation.  Apparently, the Department decided against the alternative option of subpoenaing the computer devices or seeking a search warrant, rather than granting useless immunities, in order to obtain any evidence relevant to the e-mail investigation that might have been contained in those devices.

Third, the Department and FBI did not conduct their last minute interview of Hillary Clinton under oath and allowed Cheryl Mills – herself a material witness – to sit in during Hillary’s interview. They did not ask pertinent follow-up questions. There was no verbatim transcript of the interview to use in checking the veracity of Hillary’s statements during the interview against her sworn Congressional testimony or her many public statements.

Fourth, the Department of Justice reportedly refused to allow the FBI to issue subpoenas to gather more evidence in connection with its investigation of the Clinton Foundation pay-for-play allegations. In fact, senior Department officials reportedly would not authorize a more thorough FBI investigation because they claimed there was not sufficient evidence gathered thus far to justify going further. Such a circular argument was a mere cover to prevent seasoned career investigators from learning the full extent of foreign government donations while Hillary was Secretary of State, their true motivations and any favors extended by the State Department in return.

Finally, the cross-connections between the Clintons and some high level Department of Justice and FBI officials cry out for recusal. But not so in this administration. For example, the wife of the deputy FBI director who was involved in the laggard Clinton Foundation investigation, Andrew McCabe, just happened to have received a large donation from close Clinton ally Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe to her 2015 run for the State Senate.

To make matters worse, the Obama Department of Justice assigned Assistant Attorney General Peter J. Kadzik, a close friend of Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta, to communicate with Congress about what Kadzik promised would be a “thorough” review of the newly discovered e-mails from Anthony Weiner’s online account.

Podesta praised Kadzik in an e-mail to an Obama campaign official back in 2008 as a “Fantastic lawyer,” and said about his pal, “Kept me out of jail.” Their history together goes further back than that. During the waning days of Bill Clinton’s presidency, it was Kadzik, then representing the infamous billionaire fugitive Marc Rich, who lobbied Podesta, then serving as Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, for a presidential pardon on his client’s behalf. Kadzik’s lobbying effort, no doubt helped along by contributions to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign and to Bill Clinton’s presidential library, paid off. Bill Clinton delivered the requested pardon on his last day in office.

Kadzik joined the Department of Justice in April 2013, first as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs, and then as the Principal Deputy. With the Podesta connection intact, Kadzik has served as a highly placed Clinton campaign mole in the Department. An e-mail dated May 19, 2015 from Kadzik to Podesta, released by WikiLeaks, proves the point.  Bearing the subject heading “Heads Up,” Kadzik advised Podesta about upcoming Congressional testimony by the head of the Department’s Civil Division, and about another filing in the Freedom of Information case that would mean “it will be awhile (2016) before the State Department posts the emails.” Podesta forwarded Kadzik’s heads up e-mail to several senior Hillary Clinton campaign officials with the admonition: “Additional chances for mischief.”

Exploiting his coordinating role in the re-opened e-mail investigation and contacts with FBI investigators, Kadzik will now be in a position to relay inside information to his pal Podesta and to provide inside information to the Clinton campaign’s supporters in Congress as well. 

The Clintons manage to turn virtually everything they touch into a cesspool of corruption. The Obama Department of Justice is no exception. 

Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264705/obama-doj-handmaiden-clinton-corruption-joseph-klein

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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