“The laws that they mean to use as a shield are fast becoming the spear to overthrow the laws as they intended them to be. People just did not figure that out until after the fact.”
The New York Times reported on July 27, 2015 that the “Boy Scouts End Ban on Gay Leaders.”
The Boy Scouts of America claims its child abuse prevention program is the best in the country. However, there have been over 2,000 cases of abuse in the Boy Scouts. Here are some examples.
In 2005, the man who ran that program, Douglas Smith Jr., was sentenced to eight years in a federal prison for trafficking in child pornography on the Internet.
David Watkins, a former Boy Scout leader, has been charged with sodomizing a boy under 13 years of age in his troop.
Scout leader Brett Tayler was charged with more than 30 counts of child molestation and exploitation. He is suspected of molesting at least 10 boys from ages 6-9 years old.
Scout leader Peter Robert Stibal II was sentenced to 21 years for sexually abusing four Scouts from 2003 to 2008 and possessing child pornography.
If such crimes have already come to the light in the Boy Scouts, one must ask why the radical homosexual lobby is determined to force the BSA to allow homosexuals to infiltrate their organization.
I warned America that Canadian Scouts (CS) decided to allow females, atheists, agnostics, homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals to join the CS. In 1999, they approved the establishment of an all-homosexual troop, which now marches in Canada’s “gay pride” parades. Within five years, scouting membership dropped over 50 percent. Many scouting camps and offices were closed, and the staff was laid off.
As one would expect when the doors to sinful behavior are swung open. Sex abuse by leaders in scouting is another tragic consequence (Romans 1:24-27).
Boys who become scouts to receive a healthy, moral upbringing are instead becoming lifetime victims of criminals who prey on children.
Even worse is the lack of justice these young boys receive. Canada’s epidemic of child sex abuse is largely swept under the rug to protect pederasts.
Brian Rushfeldt, president of Canada Family Action, stated, “The notion that we need to protect homosexuals more than we need to protect children … has been a disturbing trend.”
The Scouts is not the only area affected by the radical homosexual lobby’s bully pulpit. The education system is targeted in a large degree.
After Canada passed homosexual marriage legislation in 2005, Phil Lees of Canada’s Public Education Advocates for Christian Equity (PEACE), who spent most of his career in public education, said the same-sex “marriage” law had an immediate effect on Canadian schools:
“Experience shows that whenever homosexual marriage becomes law, children will be exposed to an increasingly sexualized curriculum and school environment at an early age, as early as kindergarten.”
Washington, D.C.: The Center for Security Policy released a new paperback version of the monograph by investigative journalist James Simpson: The Red-Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America.
This report extensively details the networks of radical left non-profits, foundations, government agencies and the personalities behind them. Unbeknownst to most Americans they are using refugee resettlement as a pretext to import waves of immigrants from third-world nations as a key front in Obama’s strategy of “fundamentally transforming” America. These refugees have little interest in assimilating. Many are from Muslim countries, view immigration as “Hijra” i.e. a subversive means to invade a foreign nation, and have demonstrated a willingness to either support or engage in terrorism both in America and abroad.
These groups are coached by leftist non-profits to capitalize on our generous welfare programs and shown how to maneuver around legal impediments – all at our expense – but are not being taught how to assimilate. The report conservatively estimates welfare costs at $10 billion per year. Additionally, government resettlement contractors receive $1 billion annually in federal tax dollars and non-profits supporting the agenda are provided billions of dollars from non-profits like George Soros’ Open Society Institute.
The President has launched a “Welcoming America” initiative which seeks to “seed” refugees throughout our communities and weed out “pockets of resistance” with a full-throated effort vilifying anyone opposing his radical agenda. It is literally an offensive to erase American laws, traditions and culture, and replace them with a pliable, multi-cultural society that will vote the Left into the “permanent progressive majority” it seeks.
Center for Security Policy President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. states:
Jim Simpson has done a characteristically exacting investigation of the extent to which the red-green axis – the radical left, with its activists, contractors, philanthropies and friends in the Obama administration, and Islamic supremacists – have joined forces to use U.S. refugee resettlement programs as a prime means to achieve the ‘fundamental transformation’ of America. His expose is particularly timely against the backdrop of the government sponsored effort to ‘Welcome New Americans’ and suppress those who understand the imperative of “resisting” the migration to and colonization of this country, or hijra, that Shariah-adherent Muslim believed they are required to undertake.
The following analysis is the second in a series which discusses the Iranian nuclear deal and examines the JCPOA as a legal document from an American perspective. This analysis will identify and explain various loopholes and their consequences in the JCPOA. Loopholes are common in the JCPOA and occur most often in the form of a prohibition or provision set forth in clear terms, followed by a statement or paragraph either negating or providing a possible alternative to the stated prohibition or provision. The decision to negate or to provide a possible alternative is dependent on the Joint Commission. In making so much dependent on the Joint Commission, the JCPOA has been turned into a provisional document which stands to be altered by the Joint Commission at its discretion. This analysis will also draw on United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2231 which endorsed the JCPOA for reference. It does not intend to be an overall assessment of the deal.
Nuclear Activity “Suitable For The Development Of A Nuclear Explosive Device” Could Be Allowed
If there is any area in the JCPOA where prohibitions should be absolute, it should be the section regarding the development of nuclear weapons since the reason for the whole agreement is – as per statements by President Obama and Secretary Kerry – to prevent nuclear weapons development.However, the JCPOA provides alternatives even to this provision.
Under the JCPOA, Iran is prohibited from: “Designing, developing, fabricating, acquiring, or using multi-point explosive detonation systems suitable for a nuclear explosive device…” as well as from “Designing, developing, fabricating, acquiring, or using explosive diagnostic systems (streak cameras, framing cameras and flash x-ray cameras) suitable for the development of a nuclear explosive device…”
However, the abovementioned provisions prohibiting any activity with systems suitable for nuclear weapons disappear if the Joint Commission approves the activities for “non-nuclear purposes” and provided that they are “subject to monitoring.” There are many ways to take advantage of this loophole: for example, even if the Joint Commission declares that a certain activity is subject to monitoring, that does not necessarily mean that Iran will allow the IAEA to monitor said site if it “interferes with Iranian military or other national security activities.”
Re-Imposition Of Sanctions Will Not Apply To Contracts Signed After JCPOA Implementation, Iran Views Re-Imposition Of Sanctions As Grounds To Withdraw – Unresolved Contradiction In The JCPOA
The re-imposition of sanctions should Iran violate the JCPOA may be circumvented. The JCPOA states that if the Security Council decides to re-impose sanctions, “…these provisions would not apply with retroactive effect to contracts signed between any party and Iran or Iranian individuals and entities prior to the date of application, provided that the activities contemplated under and execution of such contracts are consistent with this JCPOA and the previous and current UN Security Council resolutions.” This means that Iran can sign as many new contracts as possible between the time when sanctions are lifted and when they are (potentially) re-imposed, because those contracts will be grandfathered as long as they are within the limitations of the JCPOA. This clause effectively weakens the prospect of re-imposing sanctions: if Iran signs enough new contracts before sanctions are re-imposed, then those sanctions will be meaningless because they will not apply to the new contracts.
Iran, for its part, has explicitly stated in the JCPOA that, “…it will treat such a re-introduction or re-imposition of the sanctions specified in Annex II, or such an imposition of new nuclear-related sanctions, as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part.”This is a loophole in and of itself: if Iran will withdraw upon re-imposition of sanctions, then the sanctions are meaningless.
The JCPOA is inherently flawed because of this contradiction regarding Iran’s declared position on sanctions. One of the most important safeguards that has been stressed by the negotiating team while defending the agreement is that if Iran violates the JCPOA, sanctions will be quickly re-imposed. President Obama himself has framed this provision in the context that Iran will be incentivized to remain within the boundaries of the JCPOA in order to maintain sanctions relief. However, because of the inclusion in the JCPOA that Iran openly regards any re-imposition of sanctions as grounds to withdraw from the agreement, this safeguard is invalidated.
Keeping Arms Embargo For 5 Years Does Not Exist In JCPOA, Only Referenced In UNSCR 2231
Contrary to what many analyses of the JCPOA have reported, there is no mention of keeping the arms embargo for 5 years in the JCPOA. The only time it is mentioned is in UNSCR 2231. UNSCR 2231 also notes, “The provisions of this Resolution do not constitute provisions of this JCPOA.” Therefore, violating the Resolution is not the equivalent of violating the JCPOA, and Iran does not necessarily have to wait 5 years before trading arms to stay within the limits of the JCPOA. Deputy Foreign Minister of Iran Abbas Araghchi affirmed this in an interview on July 20, 2015 by stating that even if Iran did not abide by UNSCR 2231 and traded arms before the 5-year limit, such a violation would not be tantamount to violating the JCPOA.
Accumulation Of Enriched Uranium Could Be Greater Than 300 kg, Not All Enriched Uranium Monitored By IAEA
Although the JCPOA stipulates that Iran will only be allowed to have 300 kg of enriched uranium for 15 years, there are loopholes which actually allow for a much greater amount of enriched uranium to accumulate: “Russian designed, fabricated and licensed fuel assemblies for use in Russian-supplied reactors in Iran do not count against the 300 kg UF6 stockpile limit.” This provision may seem trivial because it is very clear that the fuel is to be used only in Russian-supplied reactors. However, the following provisions are not as clear.
The JCPOA further states that enriched uranium coming from sources outside Iran “which are certified by the fuel supplier and the appropriate Iranian authority to meet international standards” will not count toward the 300 kg limit and furthermore will be left unchecked by the Joint Commission and/or the IAEA. The JCPOA does not account for Iran receiving fuel from a country that may not comply with international standards, nor does it account for the fact that Iran itself may not comply with international standards if left unmonitored.
Contrastingly, the JCPOA makes it a point to declare that enriched uranium and products producedwithin Iran will be closely monitored and inspected, and will not count against the 300 kg limit only in the case that they are declared safe from being converted to UF6. While it is important to monitor the substances coming from within Iran, there is a gaping loophole through which Iran could potentially acquire much more than its designated 300 kg of enriched uranium from outside sources.
TRR Fuel For R&D At Necessary High Level Enrichment Could Be Permitted Before 15-Year Limit, Additional Fuel To Be Made Available To Iran As Needed
The Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) is monitored by the IAEA and has been operating using low-enriched uranium (LEU) since 1993. However, even while under supervision, Iran conducted “undeclared plutonium experiments and polonium production” in the early 1990s, both of which materials are used to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denied allegations of using the materials with the intent to create nuclear weapons and instead claimed to be using them for peaceful purposes.
Under the JCPOA, Iran is prohibited from producing or conducting R&D on plutonium or uranium metals or their alloys for 15 years. This R&D involves enriching uranium higher than the permitted 3.67%. However, the JCPOA simultaneously presents a loophole to circumvent this provision by saying, “If Iran seeks to initiate R&D on uranium metal based TRR fuel in small agreed quantities after 10 years and before 15 years, Iran will present its plan to, and seek approval by, the Joint Commission.” Iran will also be able to acquire additional fuel for the TRR from the international market as needed.These two loopholes open the way for Iran to continue experiments similar to those conducted in the 1990s, even while under the supervision of the IAEA as before. At the very least, Iran will be able to acquire such necessary material to be able to develop its nuclear capabilities after the termination of the JCPOA.
New Centrifuges Could Proceed To Prototype Stage Prior To 10-Year Limit
Iran will continue to conduct R&D on its centrifuges through computer modeling and simulations, but is not allowed to test any models for 10 years. However, the JCPOA states, “For any such project to proceed to a prototype stage for mechanical testing within 10 years, a full presentation to, and approval by, the Joint Commission is needed.” It is thus fully possible for Iran to continue developing its centrifuge capabilities if approved by the Joint Commission. This, in turn, will speed up their nuclear development and serve as preparation for the years after the termination of the JCPOA.
Timeframe For Resolving Issues Of Contention Could Be More Than 30 Days
 President Obama said in an interview with Tom Friedman of The New York Times on July 14, 2015, “We are measuring this deal — and that was the original premise of this conversation, including by Prime Minister Netanyahu — Iran could not get a nuclear weapon. That was always the discussion. And what I’m going to be able to say, and I think we will be able to prove, is that this by a wide margin is the most definitive path by which Iran will not get a nuclear weapon, and we will be able to achieve that with the full cooperation of the world community and without having to engage in another war in the Middle East.” See link for full text: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/opinion/thomas-friedman-obama-makes-his-case-on-iran-nuclear-deal.html
 “Iran will not engage in the following activities which could contribute to the development of a nuclear explosive device: Designing, developing, fabricating, acquiring, or using multi-point explosive detonation systems suitable for a nuclear explosive device, unless approved by the Joint Commission for non-nuclear purposes and subject to monitoring. Designing, developing, fabricating, acquiring, or using explosive diagnostic systems (streak cameras, framing cameras and flash x-ray cameras) suitable for the development of a nuclear explosive device, unless approved by the Joint Commission for non-nuclear purposes and subject to monitoring.” JCPOA, Annex I, Article T, Paragraph 82. See link for full text: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal/1651/
 JCPOA, Section I, Article C, Paragraph 37. See Footnote 2 for link to text.
 JCPOA, Section I, Article C, Paragraph 26. See Footnote 2 for link to text.
 President Obama said in his initial remarks on the Iran deal on July 14, 2015, “All of this [the specific terms with which Iran will have to comply to have the sanctions lifted] will be memorialized and endorsed in a new United Nations Security Council resolution. And if Iran violates the deal, all of these sanctions will snap back into place. So there is a very clear incentive for Iran to follow through and there are very real consequences for a violation.” See link for full text:http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/07/14/us/ap-us-obama-iran-nuclear-talks-text.html?_r=1
 UNSCR 2231, Footnote 1, Article C, Paragraph 18. See Footnote 8 for link to text.
 This was stated in the same interview cited in Footnote 8 by Deputy Foreign Minister Araghchi, who said, “In the Iranian Foreign Ministry statement, it was said explicitly that Iran does not attach any legitimacy to any restriction or to any threat, whether past or future, by the Security Council. If UNSCR 2231 will be violated by Iran, it will be a violation of the Resolution only, not of the JCPOA. As it happened 10 years ago, we violated Security Council resolutions, and nothing happened. The JCPOA and UNSCR 2231 are two separate documents.”
 JCPOA, Annex I, Article J, Paragraph 59. See Footnote 2 for link to text.
 “Enriched uranium in fabricated fuel assemblies from other sources outside of Iran for use in Iran’s nuclear research and power reactors, including those which will be fabricated outside of Iran for the initial fuel load of the modernised Arak research reactor, which are certified by the fuel supplier and the appropriate Iranian authority to meet international standards, will not count against the 300 kg UF6 stockpile limit.” JCPOA, Annex I, Article J, Paragraph 59. See Footnote 2 for link to text.
 “Enriched uranium in fabricated fuel assemblies and its intermediate products manufactured in Iran and certified to meet international standards, including those for the modernised Arak research reactor, will not count against the 300 kg UF6 stockpile limit provided the Technical Working Group of the Joint Commission approves that such fuel assemblies and their intermediate products cannot be readily converted into UF6.” JCPOA, Annex I, Article J, Paragraph 59. See Footnote 2 for link to text.
 “For 15 years, Iran will not engage in producing or acquiring plutonium or uranium metals or their alloys, or conducting R&D on plutonium or uranium (or their alloys) metallurgy, or casting, forming, or machining plutonium or uranium metal.” JCPOA, Annex I, Article E, Paragraph 24. See Footnote 2 for link to text.
 JCPOA, Annex I, Article E, Paragraph 26. See Footnote 2 for link to text.
 “All remaining uranium oxide enriched to between 5% and 20% will be fabricated into fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR). Any additional fuel needed for the TRR will be made available to Iran at international market prices.” JCPOA, Section I, Article A, Paragraph 7. See Footnote 2 for link to text.
 JCPOA, Annex I, Article G, Paragraph 43. See Footnote 2 for link to text.
by Roger Aronoff
Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB) member Clare Lopez, believes that in 2011 Hillary Clinton’s State Department was orchestrating its own gun running operation to the Libyan rebels—and that arms dealer Marc Turi has been set up to take the fall for these “illicit arms deals.”
“The Justice Department has charged Turi with lying on an export-license application, alleging he hid his intent to ship weapons and ammunition to Libya in direct violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 170,” reports Jerome Corsi for WorldNetDaily.
“Marc Turi was set up and framed for something he didn’t do, while others, who actually did collaborate with Qatar and the UAE to deliver the weapons under U.S. and NATO protection and supervision, are not only not prosecuted like Marc Turi, they’re not even mentioned,” Lopez told Corsi.
“Lopez made it clear she was speaking for herself and not for the commission,” he reports.
Corsi has written several previous articles about the work of the CCB, which was established by Accuracy in Media back in 2013. “The commission has been working behind the scenes for the past two years to ensure Congress uncovers what really happened in the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans,” writes Corsi.
“Lopez [said the] ‘key point is that Marc Turi, despite receiving written approval from the U.S. government to broker weapons to Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, never actually went through [with] any weapons purchases or shipments to Qatar, to the UAE or to Libya,” he writes.
Lopez referred to the Citizens’ Commission’s April 2014 interim report, which stated: “Even more disturbingly, the U.S. was fully aware of and facilitating the delivery of weapons to the al-Qa’eda-dominated rebel militias throughout the 2011 rebellion. The jihadist agenda of AQIM, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), and other Islamic terror groups represented among the rebel forces was well known to U.S. officials responsible for Libya policy.”
In fact, “The rebels made no secret of their al-Qa’eda affiliation, openly flying and speaking in front of the black flag of Islamic jihad…” states the report.
When Hillary Clinton’s Libya-related emails were released, they exposed how Mrs. Clinton was interested in arming the rebels before they were “formally recognized by the U.S. or United Nations,” according to Catherine Herridge and Pamela Browne.
Fox News previously reported that Turi had said the “weapons supplied to Libya were in the hands of the U.S. government and the State Department’s Bureau of Political and Military Affairs, headed by key Hillary Clinton aide Andrew Shapiro,” reports Corsi. “Shapiro was responsible to oversee the export control process at the State Department.”
Mrs. Clinton exchanged emails with the Director of Policy Planning for the Department of State, Anne-Marie Slaughter, in the spring of 2011. On March 30, 2011, Slaughter counseled Hillary Clinton that she was “VERY dubious about arming the Libyan rebels.” When Hillary Clinton asked why, Slaughter argued that “sending more arms into a society generally… will result in more violence—against each other” and “adding even more weapons does not make sense.”
Yet Mrs. Clinton emailed her aide, Jake Sullivan, on April 8, 2011, that “FYI. The idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered.”
Years after the intervention, Libya remains a broken state marred by ongoing violence.
It’s already been established that Mrs. Clinton failed to turn over all of her work related emails, allowed sensitive and classified material on her private email server, and lied about both. Yet we are asked to believe that the more than 30,000 emails that she had deleted and wiped from her server were all personal emails. It’s clear that even her allies in the media are getting nervous about where all of this is headed, since she is the presumed Democratic Party standard bearer. The question is, will she ever be held accountable, and judged by the same standards as others who have “mishandled” classified information? And what about her role in the Libyan and Benghazi scandals? It is looking more and more like the only accountability may come from the American voters.
Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. He can be contacted at [email protected].]]>
(Editor’s note: As the world mourns the loss of Cecil the Lion and news outlets report on trophy hunting, the main stream media virtually ignores the harvesting of body parts from the most innocent of all life, the unborn… TWEET #PPSellsBabyParts)
#PPSellsBabyParts PLANNED PARENTHOOD’S TOP DOCTOR, PRAISED BY CEO, USES PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS TO SELL BABY PARTSPPFA Senior Director of Medical Services Deborah Nucatola, Other Planned Parenthood Leadership Documented Selling Aborted Baby Parts in 3-Year Investigative Journalism Study
LOS ANGELES, July 14—New undercover footage shows Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, describing how Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of aborted fetuses, and admitting she uses partial-birth abortions to supply intact body parts.
In the video, Nucatola is at a business lunch with actors posing as buyers from a human biologics company. As head of PPFA’s Medical Services department, Nucatola has overseen medical practice at all Planned Parenthood locations since 2009. She also trains new Planned Parenthood abortion doctors and performs abortions herself at Planned Parenthood Los Angeles up to 24 weeks.
The buyers ask Nucatola, “How much of a difference can that actually make, if you know kind of what’s expected, or what we need?”“It makes a huge difference,” Nucatola replies. “I’d say a lot of people want liver. And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps. The kind of rate-limiting step of the procedure is calvarium. Calvarium—the head—is basically the biggest part.”
Nucatola explains, “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”“And with the calvarium, in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that it’s not vertex,” she continues. “So if you do it starting from the breech presentation, there’s dilation that happens as the case goes on, and often, the last step, you can evacuate an intact calvarium at the end.”
Using ultrasound guidance to manipulate the fetus from vertex to breech orientation before intact extraction is the hallmark of the illegal partial-birth abortion procedure (18 U.S.C. 1531).
Nucatola also reveals that Planned Parenthood’s national office is concerned about their liability for the sale of fetal parts: “At the national office, we have a Litigation and Law Department which just really doesn’t want us to be the middle people for this issue right now,” she says. “But I will tell you that behind closed doors these conversations are happening with the affiliates.”
The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2).
A separate clip shows Planned Parenthood President and CEO Cecile Richards praising Nucatola’s work to facilitate connections for fetal tissue collection. “Oh good,” Richards says when told about Nucatola’s support for fetal tissue collection at Planned Parenthood, “Great. She’s amazing.”
The video is the first by The Center for Medical Progress in its “Human Capital” series, a nearly 3-year-long investigative journalism study of Planned Parenthood’s illegal trafficking of aborted fetal parts. Project Lead David Daleiden notes: “Planned Parenthood’s criminal conspiracy to make money off of aborted baby parts reaches to the very highest levels of their organization. Elected officials must listen to the public outcry for Planned Parenthood to be held accountable to the law and for our tax dollars to stop underwriting this barbaric abortion business.”
Refugee Resettlement Watch
Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX) has introduced the Resettlement Accountability National Security Act (H.R. 3314) which seeks to suspend refugee resettlement to America until economic costs are analyzed and national security concerns are put to rest.
Rep. Brian Babin is a first term Congressman from East Texas.
I’ve been following this issue for eight years and this is the first time I have seen anyone in Congress (other than recent concerns about Syrian refugees) take a single step to begin to scrutinize the entire program.
Now, let’s see if Rep. Trey Gowdy will give the bill a hearing in his all-important Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security!
Just a reminder, Babin’s home state of Texasis presently the number one state targeted by the UN/US State Department for refugee distribution.
Here is Babin’s press release (hat tip: Rosemary):
Washington, DC – U.S. Rep. Brian Babin (TX-36) yesterday introduced the Resettlement Accountability National Security Act (H.R. 3314), which places an immediate suspension on allowing immigrants into the United States under the refugee resettlement program, until the Government Accountability Office (GAO) completes a thorough examination of its costs on federal, state and local governments. According to the U.S. refugee admissions database, nearly 500,000 new immigrants have come to the U.S. under the resettlement program since President Obama first took office – with the state of Texas and its taxpayers being asked to take in more than any other state.
“It is extremely unsettling that the Obama Administration would continue to expand the U.S. resettlement program at such an irresponsible pace in light of our economic and national security challenges,” said Rep. Babin. “While this program may be warranted in certain situations, it is continuing at an unchecked pace. For the past decade the U.S. has been admitting roughly 70,000 new refugees a year, with little understanding of the economic and social costs on our communities.
“Our legislation institutes a common sense pause in the program so that we can better understand the long-term and short-term costs that this program has on local governments, states and U.S. taxpayers. It also gives us an opportunity to examine potential national security issues related to entry and resettlement, particularly as federal law enforcement officials are increasingly concerned about home-grown terrorists.”
This is a very big deal! Please! Thank Rep. Babin (202-225-1555) and put pressure on Gowdy’s subcommittee to give the bill a hearing! It is shameful that the program has not in all of its 35-year history been subject to a thorough review. Call Gowdy at 202-225-6030 even if you have done it before!
Consider sending your horror stories to Rep. Babin!
An afterthought: Babin is going to get pounded by the supposedly religious resettlement contractors especially ones with tentacles in his district. If you live in his district and are supportive of his efforts, please let him know. Those ‘Christian’ contractors can be pretty mean!
SOURCE: REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT WATCH]]>
Whoever succeeds him, when President Obama turns over the keys on January 20, 2017, the most serious problem now confronting the country and the world will be gone.
Don Feder | GrassTopsUSA
The current occupant of the White House – Barack, the first of his name – is seriously unhappy with the comments of two contenders for the Republican presidential nomination, Having endured their logic for as long as he could, Obama unburdened himself in Addis Ababa on Monday.
While saving some disdain for Donald Trump, POTUS was particularly incensed by the comments of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who said the president’s genocide-in-the-making deal with Iran is like marching Israelis “to the ovens.” Such rhetoric is “part of a general pattern that you’ve seen that would be considered ridiculous if it weren’t so sad,” the leader of the universe dolefully intoned.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – who Obama loathes more than any other leader – has said much the same thing in different words. In 2014, an unnamed source in a White House famous for its civility called Netanyahu “chicken sh*t.”
But the president was just getting warmed up. Some Republicans may feign shock over Trump’s rhetoric, “and yet that arises out of a culture where those kinds of outrageous attacks (like suggesting Obamacare is a wealth-redistribution scheme) have become far too commonplace and get circulated nonstop through the Internet and talk radio, news outlets.”
Obama then confided, “In 18 months, I’m turning over the keys. I want to make sure that I’m turning over the keys to someone who is serious about the serious problems that the country faces and the world faces.” Seriously?
The president – who’s a hardcore ideologue with the disposition of a spoiled child – hopes that whoever takes over from him will be as serious as he is – seriously delusional.
The Iran surrender – which is in line with Obama’s other foreign policy disasters – makes Munich look like “trust-but-verify.” The president is saying to the American people: “Are you going to believe what the ayatollahs say the deal means to them, or what I’m telling you it means to them?”
This much is clear:
• It will unfreeze $150 billion in Iranian assets, which Tehran will use to further its nuclear program and support global jihad. Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei promises: “Whether the deal is approved or disapproved, we will never stop supporting our friends in the region and the (most dangerous) people of Palestinian, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain and Lebanon.” In congressional testimony on Tuesday, Secretary of State John Kerry admitted that Iran is the foremost sponsor of international terrorism.
• Once sanctions are lifted, Iran will be able to import unlimited quantities of conventional weapons – which will eventually to be used to kill Christians, Jews, Sunnis and Kurds in the Middle East.
• The regime’s intentions – the annihilation of America, a nuclear Holocaust for Israel – are no more in doubt than Hitler’s were in “Mein Kampf.”
• There will be no snap inspections of the terror-state’s nuclear facilities.
• Tehran says there will be no inspections of nuclear facilities on Iranian military bases. All the mullahs have to do to put a reactor off limits is to declare the surrounding area a military base,
• If a requested inspection is rejected, the dispute will go to an international arbitration committee loaded with Iran’s friends or those it can easily influence.
• The deal Obama and Kerry have worked out depends on the good faith and reasonableness of the most viciously insane regime on earth.
Of course, the president is equally serious about a broad range of issues.
On average, 1,000 illegal aliens a day have entered the United States since Obama became president. He refuses to secure the border, issues unconstitutional amnesties (that he calls executive orders), sues states that try to do the job Washington won’t do, and facilitated the entry of 300,000 juveniles from Central America last year, doing everything but handing out fruit baskets at the border.
Last week, the president who’s the nation’s greatest enabler of illegal immigration, threatened to veto pending legislation which would cut off federal funding for sanctuary cities. A White House statement said the measure doesn’t further comprehensive immigration reform (amnesty) – which the president feels is furthered by municipalities that shelter the most dangerous undocumented criminals. If Obama had a daughter who was murdered by an illegal alien, would she look like Kate Steinle?
The National Debt is a problem of staggering proportions. Even Obama expressed concern about this mountain of IOUs – before he became president. On July 3, 2008, candidate Obama said Bush’s contribution (adding $4 trillion in eight years) was “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic.” His predecessor had put that amount on “a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children,” Obama charged.
To date, this president has added over $8 trillion to the National Debt, taking it to over $18 trillion, with a year and a half still to go. Since September 30, 2012, the National Debt has increased at an average rate of $2.03 billion a day. Obama’s idea of confronting this serious problem seriously is by threatening to veto any increase in the debt ceiling that’s accompanied by meaningful fiscal reforms.
In a February CNN poll, 39% of Americans said race relations have gotten worse under Obama, compared to 15% who said they’ve improved. The president who was supposed to bring us together rarely misses a chance to divide us based on skin color.
When his friend Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates was arrested in 2009, the Cambridge police “acted stupidly,” the president sneered.
If he had a son, “he’d look like Trayvon” Martin, who died in an altercation with a neighborhood watch captain in Sanford, Florida. The latter was acquitted of second-degree murder.
Last year, when a grand jury refused to indict a white cop who shot a black teen in self-defense, the Department of Justice sent dozens of investigators to Ferguson, Missouri to try to make a civil rights case against the officer. When that didn’t work, it issued a report charging the Ferguson police department with “a broad pattern of racially biased enforcement.” For this president, all black lives matter – unless it’s the life of a black man who just lost his job to an illegal immigrant.
As his go-to guy on race, the president chose none other than Al Sharpton – perpetrator of the Tawana Brawley fraud and inciter of the Crown Heights and Freddy’s Fashion Mart lynch mobs. Obama has a racial chip the size of a sequoia on his shoulder. He believes racism is endemic to America and that in any racial confrontation, whites are guilty until proven innocent.
Benghazi (he lied about the cause for two weeks), Fast and Furious, losing the war on terrorism, the IRS scandal (the president says the only scandal is inadequate funding for the rogue agency), and guns and crime (he also says guns in private hands are more of a threat to Americans than terrorism) – all demonstrate how Obama deals seriously with serious problems – by denying reality.
Whoever succeeds him, when President Obama turns over the keys on January 20, 2017, the most serious problem now confronting the country and the world will be gone.Don Feder is a former Boston Herald writer who is now a political/communications consultant. He also maintains a Facebook page.
[clickToTweet tweet=”#PPSellsBabyParts PLANNEDPARENTHOOD VP FETUSES MAY COMEOUT INTACT AGREES PYMTS SPECIFIC 2 SPECIMEN” quote=”#PPSellsBabyParts PLANNED PARENTHOOD VP SAYS FETUSES MAY COME OUT INTACT, AGREES PAYMENTS SPECIFIC TO THE SPECIMEN”]
Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountains VP & Medical Director Savita Ginde Discusses Contract Details, Aborted Body Parts Pricing, and How to Not “Get Caught”
DENVER, July 30–New undercover footage shows Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains’ Vice President and Medical Director, Dr. Savita Ginde, negotiating a fetal body parts deal, agreeing multiple times to illicit pricing per body part harvested, and suggesting ways to avoid legal consequences.
Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM) is a wealthy, multi-state Planned Parenthood affiliate that does over 10,000 abortions per year. PPRM has a contract to supply aborted fetal tissue to Colorado State University in Fort Collins.
In the video, actors posing as representatives from a human biologics company meet with Ginde at the abortion-clinic headquarters of PPRM in Denver to discuss a potential partnership to harvest fetal organs. When the actors request intact fetal specimens, Ginde reveals that in PPRM’s abortion practice, “Sometimes, if we get, if someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure, then we are intact.”
Since PPRM does not use digoxin or other feticide in its 2nd trimester procedures, any intact deliveries before an abortion are potentially born-alive infants under federal law (1 USC 8).
“We’d have to do a little bit of training with the providers or something to make sure that they don’t crush” fetal organs during 2nd trimester abortions, says Ginde, brainstorming ways to ensure the abortion doctors at PPRM provide usable fetal organs.
When the buyers ask Ginde if “compensation could be specific to the specimen?” Ginde agrees, “Okay.” Later on in the abortion clinic’s pathological laboratory, standing over an aborted fetus, Ginde responds to the buyer’s suggestion of paying per body part harvested, rather than a standard flat fee for the entire case: “I think a per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.”
The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2). Federal law also requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1).
Ginde also suggests ways for Planned Parenthood to cover-up its criminal and public relations liability for the sale of aborted body parts. “Putting it under ‘research’ gives us a little bit of an overhang over the whole thing,” Ginde remarks. “If you have someone in a really anti state who’s going to be doing this for you, they’re probably going to get caught.”
Ginde implies that PPRM’s lawyer, Kevin Paul, is helping the affiliate skirt under the fetal tissue law: “He’s got it figured out that he knows that even if, because we talked to him in the beginning, you know, we were like, ‘We don’t want to get called on,’ you know, ‘selling fetal parts across states.’” The buyers ask, “And you feel confident that they’re building those layers?” to which Ginde replies, “I’m confident that our Legal will make sure we’re not put in that situation.”
As the buyers and Planned Parenthood workers identify body parts from last fetus in the path lab, a Planned Parenthood medical assistant announces: “Another boy!”
The video is the latest by The Center for Medical Progress documenting Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted fetal parts. Project Lead David Daleiden notes: “Elected officials need to listen to the public outcry for an immediate moratorium on Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer funding while the 10 state investigations and 3 Congressional committees determine the full extent of Planned Parenthood’s sale of baby parts.” Daleiden continues, “Planned Parenthood’s recent call for the NIH to convene an expert panel to ‘study’ fetal experimentation is absurd after suggestions from Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Ginde that ‘research’ can be used as a catch-all to cover-up baby parts sales. The biggest problem is bad actors like Planned Parenthood who hold themselves above the law in order to harvest and make money off of aborted fetal brains, hearts, and livers.”
See the video at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWQuZMvcFA8
For more information on the Human Capital project, visit centerformedicalprogress.org.
The Center for Medical Progress is a 501(c)3 non-profit dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical ethics and advances.
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced that U.S District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan today threatened to hold the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service and Justice Department attorneys in contempt of court after the IRS failed to produce status reports and newly recovered emails of Lois Lerner, former director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the IRS, as he had ordered on July 1, 2015.
During the a status hearing today, Sullivan warned that the failure to follow his order was serious and the IRS and Justice Department’s excuses for not following his July 1 order were “indefensible, ridiculous, and absurd.” He asked the IRS’ Justice Department lawyer Geoffrey Klimas, “Why didn’t the IRS comply” with his court order and “why shouldn’t the Court hold the Commissioner of the IRS in contempt.” Judge Sullivan referenced his contempt findings against Justice Department prosecutors in the prosecution of late Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) and reminded the Justice Department attorney he had the ability to detain him for contempt. Warning he would tolerate no further disregard of his orders, Judge Sullivan said, “I will haul into court the IRS Commissioner to hold him personally into contempt.”
After the hearing, Judge Sullivan issued the following “minute order”:
At the July 29, 2015 status hearing, the Government agreed that the Court’s July 1, 2015 oral order from the bench was clear and enforceable. Nonetheless, the Government reasoned it inappropriate to file a motion for reconsideration until a written order was issued. As expressed at the hearing, the Government’s reasoning is nonsensical. Officers of the Court who fail to comply with Court orders will be held in contempt. Also, in the event of non-compliance with future Court orders, the Commissioner of the IRS and others shall be directed to show cause as to why they should not be held in contempt of Court. The Court’s July 1, 2015 ruling from the bench stands: (1) the Government shall produce relevant documents every Monday; (2) the Government’s document production shall be accompanied by a status report that indicates (a) whether TIGTA has turned over any new documents to the IRS, (b) if so, the number of documents, and (c) a timeframe for the IRSs production of those documents. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 29, 2015.
At a July 1, 2015, status conference, Sullivan ordered the IRS to begin producing, every week, the nearly 1,800 newly recovered Lerner emails responsive to Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Despite the court order, the IRS did not produce any Lerner emails until July 15. The IRS also failed to provide Judicial Watch a status report of the Lerner email production issues, as also ordered by Sullivan. Last week, Judge Sullivan ordered sua sponte the parties to appear for a status hearing today after Judicial Watch raised concerns about the IRS’ failure to comply with his orders to release the newly discovered Lerner emails and status updates on its production of previously “missing” documents.
The developments come in Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuit seeking documents about the Obama IRS’ targeting and harassment of Tea Party and conservative opponents of President Obama (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:13-cv-01559)). Judicial Watch’s litigation forced the IRS first to admit that Lerner’s emails were supposedly missing and, then, that the emails were on IRS’ back-up systems.
Yesterday, Judicial Watch released the first batch believed to be newly recovered emails of Lerner. The new documents show that Lerner and other top officials in the IRS, including soon-to-be Acting IRS Commissioner Steve Miller, closely monitored and approved the controversial handling of tax-exempt applications by Tea Party organizations. The documents also show that at least one group received an inquiry from the IRS in order to buy time and keep the organization from contacting Congress.
“In a dramatic court hearing today, Judge Sullivan made it clear he would personally hold accountable the IRS Commissioner Koskinen and Justice Department attorneys for any further contempt of his court orders in Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The missing and-then-not missing Lois Lerner saga is a stark example of the Obama administration’s contempt for a federal court and the rule of law. That Obama administration officials would risk jail rather than disclose these Lerner documents shows that the IRS scandal has just gotten a whole lot worse.”
With Islam, how it is possible to dialogue with a faith that denies the divinity of Christ, regards the Bible as corrupt, believes that all Christians are the inferiors of Muslims and are destined to hell fire? What is there to talk about if both sides are to be honest about their beliefs?
When members of ISIS murder apostates, it is hard to condemn them, as that is what the Prophet did. When they take slave girls as war booty, that is what the Prophet did. Waging jihad is an injunction in many chapters of the Qur’an.
I do not know what copy of the Qur’an Pope Francis has been shown, but it is clearly very different to any copy in my possession, whether the original Arabic or a translation.
When hate preachers in British mosques convey a violent or intolerant message to their congregants, they do so by quoting the Qur’an as the Word of God, thereby sanctioning acts of jihad. To ignore this is to hamper us in our efforts to bring Muslims into peaceful relations with the West, with all non-Muslims and especially with one another.
What was striking was that, instead of successive generations of Muslims becoming better integrated into British society, the younger they are, the more radical they become. Apparently the majority of Muslims do not feel particularly progressive.
Only 34% of British Muslims believe the Holocaust happened. 62% of Muslims here do not support freedom of speech. Only 7% of Muslims in the UK consider themselves as British first. CSP Poll this year reported that 38% of Muslim-Americans say Islamic State (ISIS) beliefs are Islamic or correct. Figures such these are indicative of a wider level of acceptance of extreme ideas than your comments and those of many politicians suggest.
On June 19, when Britain’s Prime Minister, David Cameron, spoke at the 2015 Global Security Forum in Bratislava, one section (under the heading ‘Clarity’) drew widespread attention from the media and politicians, and from some the religious realm.
In that passage, Cameron spoke about the threat posed by the Islamic State (IS, ISIS, ISIL, or, in Arabic, Da’ish). “In ISIL,” he started, “we have one of the biggest threats our world has faced.” He went on to express concern about the way in which young British Muslims were being drawn into the ISIS web through the internet or within their communities:
The cause is ideological. It is an Islamist extremist ideology — one that says the West is bad and democracy is wrong that women are inferior, that homosexuality is evil. It says religious doctrine trumps the rule of law and Caliphate trumps nation state and it justifies violence in asserting itself and achieving its aims.
The question is: how do people arrive at this worldview?
How does someone who has had all the advantages of a British or a European schooling, a loving family, the freedom and equality that allow them to be who they want to be turn to a tyrannical, murderous, evil regime?
There are, of course, many reasons – and to tackle them we have to be clear about them. I am clear that one of the reasons is that there are people who hold some of these views who don’t go as far as advocating violence, but who do buy into some of these prejudices giving the extreme Islamist narrative weight and telling fellow Muslims, “you are part of this”.
This paves the way for young people to turn simmering prejudice into murderous intent. To go from listening to firebrand preachers online to boarding a plane to Istanbul and travelling onward to join the jihadis. We’ve always had angry young men and women buying into supposedly revolutionary causes. This one is evil; it is contradictory; it is futile – but it is particularly potent today.
I think part of the reason it’s so potent is that it has been given this credence.
So if you’re a troubled boy who is angry at the world, or a girl looking for an identity, for something to believe in and there’s something that is quietly condoned online, or perhaps even in parts of your local community, then it’s less of a leap to go from a British teenager to an ISIL fighter or an ISIL wife, than it would be for someone who hasn’t been exposed to these things.
For what may be the first time, a head of state dared to make a connection between ordinary Muslims and extremism, by arguing that fundamentalist views might be quietly condoned online, or perhaps even in parts of a local Muslim community.
A report written in 2007 by this author for the British think tank Policy Exchange, titled “The Hijacking of British Islam,” exposed the existence of hate literature in mosques across the UK. As soon as it was published, all hell broke loose, and everything possible was done to pretend that our evidence had been somehow faked. Many British writers and journalists such as Douglas Murray, Samuel Westrop and myself have tried over the years to draw attention to the realities of Islamic ideology and practice in schools, shari’a courts, and in politics, but we were severally rebuffed.
But now, over one thousand young British men and women have travelled to Syria and Iraq to support the Islamic State, and it is becoming clear to everyone that something is amiss — not with British society, values or aspirations, but in parts of our two million strong Muslim community. Innes Bowen’s study of the UK Muslim population, “Medina in Birmingham, Najaf in Brent: Inside British Islam,” shows in some detail just where these radical influences may come from.
Inevitably, Cameron’s references to the Muslim community brought condemnation from the usual suspects (and one unusual one). Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of a Muslim think tank, the Ramadhan Foundation, found the remarks “deeply offensive.” The Muslim Council of Britain found Cameron’s statement “wrong and counter-productive.” In a radio interview, Muslim Labour MP Yasmin Qureshi argued that, “To make the comparison he has done the way he has done, it is not only unhelpful but actually wrong.” Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, who sits in the House of Lords, described the speech as “misguided” and “demoralizing.”
That Muslim leaders might respond this way was not surprising. Muslims in the UK, with several notable exceptions such as Haras Rafiq and Majid Nawaz, have been in denial for decades, and show few signs of facing up to the dangers facing them any time soon.
The unusual rebuke came, not from a Muslim, but from Britain’s most important Catholic prelate,Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the Archbishop of Westminster. Speaking on LBC Radio on the day of Cameron’s speech, the Archbishop spoke unfavourably about the Prime Minister’s remarks on Muslims. His remarks bear quoting almost in full here:
The interviewer started by saying that “he [Cameron] seems to be laying this squarely at the door of the Muslim community. Too many people in the UK are sliding into violent extremism. He’s warned that British Muslims risk quietly condoning ISIS. Do you think that’s fair?”
To this, Nichols answered:
No. I think the community is a very diverse community. I was at a Muslim meeting last Saturday week. It was a Shi’a Muslim meeting. It was looking at dialogue and how people live together. And then they were absolute in their condemnation of ISIS. So there are many voices, Muslim voices in this country, that condemn ISIS and condemn it absolutely. We don’t hear those [voices] in the public media very often, but they’re there. It is an enormous challenge to Islam in this country, and I know many of the Muslim leaders are deeply, deeply concerned about this. I would say for most of them and the families they represent, they feel a bit helpless in terms of the access to the Internet and to that whole seduction and manipulation that goes on. I think they need help with that.
Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the Archbishop of Westminster (center). Image source: Catholic Church England and Wale
On the face of it, the Archbishop’s remarks are worthy of respect, since he is active in interfaith work and considers it to be his mission, like that of the current Pope Francis, to work for peace and conciliation. But interfaith work can often be marred by an underlying refusal to come clean about beliefs that contradict those of others.
With Islam, I have to ask how it is possible to dialogue with a faith that denies the divinity of Christ, denies that he was crucified or resurrected, denies the Trinity, denies Mary as the mother of God, denies the belief in original sin and salvation through Christ, regards the Bible as corrupt, believes that all Christians are the inferiors of Muslims and are destined to hell fire? What is there to talk about if both sides are to be honest about their beliefs?
Even if a majority of Muslims may be concerned about extremism in their midst, there are reasons to think that David Cameron’s view is close to the mark: that some Muslims unwittingly or wittingly condone what goes on because much of it is in keeping with the Qur’an, the hadith[traditions], the Shari’a law books, and Islamic practice from the time of Muhammad.
Here is what I wrote. I await his reply.
An open letter to
His Eminence Vincent Cardinal Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster
I have listened with interest to your interview last Friday on LBC Radio, when you were asked to comment on David Cameron’s speech at the 2015 Globsec conference in Bratislava, specifically his remarks concerning British Muslims and the role he wants them to take in defeating the radicalization of Muslim youth. You took issue with him, and gave reasons for a different approach to the problem.
May I comment on the things you said in turn? I write as someone with a lifetime’s experience with Islam and Islamic Studies. My second degree was a four-year MA from Edinburgh University in Persian, Arabic and Islamic History, when I studied the life of Muhammad and the Qur’an (in Arabic) with the late William Montgomery Watt, the world’s leading authority on both subjects at that time. I also have a PhD from Cambridge in Persian Studies, researching aspects of Iranian Shi’ism. I have taught Arabic-English translation and Islamic civilization in Morocco and Arabic and Islamic Studies at Newcastle University. I have written many books, academic articles, entries for scholarly encyclopaedias (including the second edition of The Encyclopaedia of Islam).
More pertinent to what I want to say here is my authorship of think tank reports on hate literature found in British mosques, on Shari’a law in the UK, and two reports on Muslim schools in this country, when I was the first person to identify the problems revealed by the Trojan Horse scandal.
I say all this, not to brag, but to show that I come to this subject as an informed and experienced commentator. I am, as much as yourself, an active opponent of genuine Islamophobia, but not of honest criticism of Islam, whether from religious or secular points of view. I have often collaborated with and written about Muslim reformers here and abroad, and I regard them as the chief hope of the Muslim community in the years to come. And I frequently criticize the treatment of such fresh thinkers by Islamist governments, whether in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, or elsewhere.
I also take a deep interest in the fate of the Baha’i community of Iran, a religious group I have studied and written about for many years. I fear that the Shi’a meeting you attended recently would have asked you to leave had you spoken up in defence of the Baha’is and asked for an end to their persecution. You say you spoke about dialogue and how people live together. Shi’a Muslims almost to a man curse the Baha’is in their prayers and support the Iranian government’s treatment of them. They are, may I say it, often vociferous in their hatred for Jews as well.
Like yourself, I have great hopes for Muslims, above all in their integration within this country and their adjustment to the British way of life while retaining those aspects of their faith that blend best with our own values — notably their spirituality, prayerfulness, and their pursuit of the various cultural achievements they bring here, from Qawwali music to one of the highest art forms of all civilization: Arabic and Persian calligraphy.
But I fear I am not as sanguine as you are about the possibilities of finding genuine opposition to radicalism. Some form of intolerance, and acceptance of violence, seems to pervade so many Muslim communities around the globe. You say, “there are many voices, Muslim voices in this country that condemn ISIS and condemn it absolutely.” That is undoubtedly true, but Muslim voices openly condemning radicalism remain muted, especially within the more closely knit communities, not least those where hate preachers still lecture in the mosques and intolerant literature is still to be found. As you yourself say, “we don’t hear those [voices] in the public media very often.” You add that “many of the Muslim leaders are deeply, deeply concerned about this.” But rather more Muslim leaders, especially those from Deobandi, Salafi, Wahhabi, Muslim Brotherhood and similar circles do not seem at all concerned.
There is a simple reason. All Muslims, if they are at all pious, believe that the Qur’an is the unassailable Word of God, dictated by the angel Gabriel to Muhammad. They also believe that it is a complete and perfect transcript of a book that has existed with God for all eternity. Sunni Muslims (and Shi’is using a different corpus) believe that the ahadith — the passages of hadith literature recording the sayings and actions of Muhammad — are beyond criticism, since centuries of scholarship have winnowed out anything unauthentic. And all Muslims, however diverse their origins, believe that the Sira, the historical biography of the Prophet, reveals words and actions that serve as models for the behaviour of all believers.
Salafi Muslims, who are the most radical, are far from a modern suddenness. They believe that Muslims must act in accordance with the path laid down by the Prophet and his companions (the salaf), the first three generations who lived in Muhammad’s lifetime.
Where does this lead? No Muslim may criticize or seek to re-interpret the Qur’an (some who have tried have been killed), the six canonical hadith volumes, or the behaviour of the Prophet and his companions. When members of ISIS murder apostates, therefore, it is hard to condemn the ISIS members, as that is what the Prophet did. When they take slave girls as war booty, that is what the Prophet did. When they impose the jizya or poll tax on Christians, or execute any who refuse to pay it, that is what the Prophet and his companions did. Waging jihad is an injunction in many chapters of the Qur’an. Taking concubines as part of war booty is ordered explicitly in the Qur’an. Killing non-Muslims who take up arms against the Muslims is repeatedly urged in the Qur’an. Killing apostates is enjoined by a Tradition in the most authentic book of hadith, the Sahih al-Bukhari. Beheading those deemed to have acted against the Muslims is an act approved of by Muhammad, famously when he allowed the beheading of some 700 male members of the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza.
Of course, many Muslims in this country are horrified by the things ISIS fighters do, above all by the non-Qur’anic punishments they carry out, such as killing Christians and others without offering them a chance for conversion, killing Muslims who have opposed them without giving them an opportunity to repent, or burning a prisoner alive. But where extremists act in accordance with Islamic law or scriptural commandments, criticism is far harder to express. I have heard only the tiniest number of British Muslims condemn Hamas, its terror tactics or its covenant to kill all Jews in the world.
After the terror recent attacks in Tunisia, Paris and Kuwait, David Cameron said that these had nothing to do with Islam and that “Islam is a religion of peace.” This is a frequent assertion by politicians. It has also been echoed by Pope Francis in his apostolic exhortation “The Joy of the Gospel,” in which he writes: “Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalizations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Quran are opposed to every form of violence.”
Much as I respect Pope Francis and find him a man of goodwill and understanding, I fear I find him much mistaken in this. It is a simple fact of Qur’an commentary, since the earliest period until today, that early, Meccan verses, which express a tolerant and peace-loving attitude, although applicable within the Muslim community, have been abrogated by later, Medinan, verses, which call for jihad, the beheading of non-Muslims, outright hatred for Jews and Christians, generalized hatred for all non-Muslims (who are destined for hellfire), and the need to use violence to impose Islamic rule across the world.
I do not know what copy of the Qur’an Pope Francis has been shown, but it is clearly very different to any copy in my possession, whether the original Arabic or a translation. When hate preachers in British mosques convey a violent or intolerant message to their congregants, they do so by quoting the Qur’an as the Word of God, thereby sanctioning acts of jihad. And the history of “authentic Islam” has been a constant story of acts of violence punctuated by periods of peacefulness within the Islamic realm. Muhammad led jihad armies and sent others out — that history is regarded by all Muslims as “authentic.” The first four caliphs (authentic to all Sunni Muslims) directed major campaigns of conquest that finally brought Muslim armies to India in the East, and the Iberian peninsula, the south of France, southern Italy and to the gates of Vienna.
The Ottoman Empire, between 1346 and 1918, conquered and enslaved much of Eastern Europe. Even several of the mystical Sufi orders, thought by many to be non-violent, fought jihad wars in North Africa, the Caucasus and elsewhere. From the 18th to the 20th century, jihad wars were waged against heretical Muslims and Westerners in India, Algeria, Sudan, Somalia, Egypt, Libya, British Mandate Palestine, against Israel, and in Arabia (twice). Today’s wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, and elsewhere are a powerful testimony to the attractions of fundamentalist Islam.
There are many kinds of jihad, but violent jihad — war in the cause of Islam — has been constant throughout Islamic history. To that extent, Islam and violence are far more closely associated with each other scripturally and historically than in any other religion. To ignore this is to hamper us in our efforts to bring Muslims into peaceful relations with the West, with all non-Muslims and especially with one another.
It also does not help if we ignore another basic Islamic doctrine, something called Al-wala’ wa’l-bara’ — meaning something like “loyalty and enmity,” as it has been translated in several English-language Muslim publications issued in the UK. While the real meaning is more complex, what it amounts to is an assertion that Muslims must have as little as possible to do with non-Muslims. Muslims should not celebrate Christmas, birthdays, anniversaries or anything else with their non-Muslim workmates or neighbours. They must not take part in interfaith gatherings where they may be called on to compromise their faith. They must expose the falsehoods of Christianity and Judaism (based on passages in the Qur’an that treat both the Old and New Testaments as hopelessly corrupt); deny the sonship and godhood of Jesus; reject the crucifixion; condemn monks and priests, and so on. This doctrine has been widely preached and published in this country. It represents a significant challenge to your own interfaith work. Even the most moderate and companionable Muslims find it impossible to deny these things, because to do so would mean denying the veracity of the Word of God.
Those who ignore such passages in the Qur’an are to be commended for making an effort to engage with non-believers, but as often as not, doing so becomes a challenge to their faith or brings them closer to secularism.
Many convert to Christianity, but in doing so they expose themselves to threats or acts of violence from their families and other local Muslims. Many converts have paid the ultimate price.
There is strong statistical evidence to show that more than a negligible number of Muslims in the West subscribe to what we consider radical views. In survey after survey, polls taken by well-regarded agencies such as Pew, NOP World (a UK company now within the German Gesellschaft für Konsumforschung [GfK], one of the top five marketing research organizations in the world), the British public opinion researcher ICM Research, the Center for Security Policy, Policy Exchange, and Civitas show high figures for support for violence, honour killings, stoning adulterers, executing apostates and much else. There is far too much material to discuss in any detail here, but a thorough compilation of such findings is available. The figures are worrying in the UK, but grow even more alarming when surveys are conducted in Muslim countries.
In 2007, the conservative British Think Tank, Policy Exchange, published a groundbreaking survey of Muslim attitudes in the UK, “Living Apart Together: British Muslims and the paradox of multiculturalism.” What was striking in it was that, instead of successive generations of Muslims becoming better integrated into British society, the younger they are the more radical they become. Overall, 53% of Muslims prefer Muslim women to wear a veil. Only 16% of 45-54-year-olds prefer shari’a to UK law, but this rises to 37% of 16-24-year-olds. Conversely, 75% of those aged 45-54 prefer UK law, but this drops to 50% of 16-24s. 56% of this youngest generation insist that a Muslim woman may not marry a non-Muslim; 56% insist that a woman may not marry without the consent of her male guardian (father, brother, uncle); 52% say a man may have up to four wives, a woman only one husband; 36% believe apostasy is punishable by death; 71% insist that homosexuality is wrong and should be illegal. Whereas 56% of 45-54 year-olds want some reform of shari’a law, this drops to 37% of 16-24 year-olds. While a mere 2% of 45-54s support al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, this rises to 13% among the youngest.
These numbers go some way to confirming Sarfraz Manzoor’s conclusion that apparently the majority of Muslims do not feel particularly progressive, especially in areas such as permitting homosexuality, mixing with members of the opposite sex, in reining in the application shari’a law.
The Policy Exchange survey must be read in its entirety. It is long, detailed, and sophisticated in its nuance. Overall, a majority of Muslims seem to be well integrated and do express loyalty to Great Britain. We should not go too far in claiming there are no progressives or that they are not in large numbers. But it remains worrying that the younger generations are clearly much less well-integrated than their fathers and grandparents.
Most immigrant communities go in the other direction. According to a 2011 report on integration by the US Migration Policy Institute, “Full integration into U.S. society and economy generally takes more than one generation, with children of immigrants reliably outperforming their parents in educational attainment, occupational status, wealth, and home ownership. Residential segregation also decreases between first and second generations, and rates of intermarriage between ethnic and racial groups increase. Language proficiency improves dramatically as well.” Clearly, this does not seem to apply as strongly among British Muslims, and a similar pattern can be seen across Europe.
Other surveys are even more disturbing. An ICM Unlimited poll in 2006 found that a full 40% of British Muslims wanted shari’a law and that as many as 20% approved of London’s 7/7 bombings. The 7/7 bombers seemed to be well-integrated young men, with jobs and educational qualifications. An NOP World Ltd. survey at the same time put the figure of support higher, at 25%. In 2005, the Federation of Islamic Students in the UK indicated that one in five Muslim students would not report other Muslims known to be planning terror attacks.
CSP Poll this year reported that 38% of Muslim-Americans say Islamic State (ISIS) beliefs are Islamic or correct. A 2010 survey of 600 Muslim students at 30 universities throughout Britain found that 32% of Muslim respondents believed that killing in the name of religion is justified; and that 40% wanted shari’a law. A 2006 NOP Research survey showed that as many as 78% of British Muslims supported punishing the publishers of Muhammad cartoons. The same survey found that fully 29% of British Muslims would “aggressively defend” Islam. It also showed that 68% of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam. When compared with the views of Christians and Jews, this is a very high figure indeed. One in ten British Muslims supports honour killings.
This is only support for violence. There are other areas for concern. Only 34% of British Muslims believe the Holocaust happened. 51% believe a Muslim woman cannot marry a non-Muslim. 62% of Muslims here do not support free speech. Only 7% of Muslims in the UK consider themselves as British first: with the passage of so many generations now, this is a disturbing indication of non-integration. 54% believe a Muslim man may marry up to four wives. 61% want homosexuality punished. According to Pew (2011) 21% of Muslim-Americans say there is a fair to great amount of support for Islamic extremism in their community. 43% of Muslim-Americans believe people of other faiths have no right to evangelize Muslims. That, of course, includes the Catholic Church. In 2013, 1 in 3 Muslims in Austria said it is not possible to be a European and a Muslim, and 22% oppose democracy.
I have, I fear, gone on too long citing statistics. But figures such these are indicative of a wider level of acceptance of extreme ideas than your comments and those of many politicians suggest. I do not envy you in your work to find reconciliation, and I do commend your efforts in seeking solutions to this problem, now a problem of overwhelming proportions across the world. Nothing here is remotely Islamophobic, insofar as it is based wholly on a direct reading of Islamic scripture and texts, of Islamic history, and of statistics for modern developments and attitudes. I do, therefore, ask you to take some measure of my comments simply on their own merits. My arguments are not subtle, and of course there are many other perspectives on all the matters covered here. As a professional, however, who has spent a lifetime studying many facets of Islam, perhaps my views deserve to be taken into account alongside the important work you do to secure closer relations with those sections of Britain’s Muslim community, who show themselves willing and even eager to forge close ties with their fellow citizens, regardless of faith or its absence.
Apologies for subjecting you to such a lengthy exposition, but I simply hope that you will see that David Cameron did not speak out of turn when he expressed concern at Bratislava.
With best wishes,
Dr. Denis MacEoin
Denis MacEoin was born in Belfast, where he learned at first hand the dangers of religious strife
SOURCE: GATESTONE INSTITUTE
The Muslim penchant to target “white” women for sexual exploitation—an epidemic currently plaguing Europe, especially Britain and Scandinavia—is as old as Islam itself, and even traces back to Muhammad.
Much literary evidence attests to this in the context of Islam’s early predations on Byzantium (for centuries, Christendom’s easternmost bulwark against the jihad). According to Ahmad M. H. Shboul (author of “Byzantium and the Arabs: The Image of the Byzantines as Mirrored in Arabic Literature”) Christian Byzantium was the “classic example of the house of war,” or Dar al-Harb—that is, the quintessential realm that needs to be conquered by jihad. Moreover, Byzantium was seen “as a symbol of military and political power and as a society of great abundance.”
The similarities between pre-modern Islamic views of Byzantium and modern Islamic views of the West—powerful, affluent, desirable, and the greatest of all infidels—should be evident. But they do not end here. To the medieval Muslim mind, Byzantium was further representative of “white people”—fair haired/eyed Christians, or, as they were known in Arabic, Banu al-Asfar, “children of yellow” (reference to blonde hair).
The Byzantines as a people were considered as fine examples of physical beauty, and youthful slaves and slave-girls of Byzantine origin were highly valued…. The Arab’s appreciation of the Byzantine female has a long history indeed. For the Islamic period, the earliest literary evidence we have is a hadith (saying of the Prophet). Muhammad is said to have addressed a newly converted [to Islam] Arab: “Would you like the girls of Banu al-Asfar?” Not only were Byzantine slave girls sought after for caliphal and other palaces (where some became mothers of future caliphs), but they also became the epitome of physical beauty, home economy, and refined accomplishments. The typical Byzantine maiden who captures the imagination oflitterateurs and poets, had blond hair, blue or green eyes, a pure and healthy visage, lovely breasts, a delicate waist, and a body that is like camphor or a flood of dazzling light.
While the essence of the above excerpt is true, the reader should not be duped by its overly “romantic” tone. Written for a Western academic publication by an academic of Muslim background, the essay is naturally euphemistic to the point of implying that being a sex slave was desirable—as if her Arab owners were enamored devotees who merely doted over and admired her beauty from afar.
Indeed, Muhammad asked a new convert “Would you like the girls of Banu al-Asfar?” as a way to entice him to join the jihad and reap its rewards—which, in this case, included the possibility of enslaving and raping blonde Byzantine women—not as some idealistic discussion on beauty.
This enticement seems to have backfired with another Muslim who refused Muhammad’s call to invade Byzantine territory (the Tabuk campaign). “O Abu Wahb,” cajoled Muhammad, “would you not like to have scores of Byzantine women and men as concubines and servants?” Wahb responded: “O Messenger of Allah, my people know that I am very fond of women and, if I see the women of the Byzantines, I fear I will not be able to hold back. So do not tempt me by them, and allow me not to join and, instead, I will assist you with my wealth.” The prophet agreed but was apparently unimpressed—after all, Wahb could have all the Byzantine women he desired if the jihad succeeded—and a new Sura for the Koran (9:49) was promptly delivered condemning the man to hell for his reported hypocrisy and failure to join the jihad.
Thus a more critical reading of Shboul’s aforementioned excerpt finds that European slave girls were not “highly valued” or “appreciated” as if they were precious statues—they were held out as sexual trophies to entice Muslims to the jihad.
Moreover, the idea that some sex slaves became mothers to future caliphs is meaningless since in Islam’s patriarchal culture, mothers—Muslim or non-Muslim—were irrelevant in lineage and had no political status. And talk of “litterateurs and poets” and “a body that is like camphor or a flood of dazzling light” is further anachronistic and does a great disservice to reality: These women were—as they still are—sex slaves, treated no differently than the many slaves of the Islamic State today.
For example, during a recent sex slave auction held by the Islamic State, blue and green eyed Yazidi girls were much coveted and fetched the highest price. Even so, these concubines are being cruelly tortured. In one instance, a Muslim savagely beat his Yazidi slave’s one year old child until she agreed to meet all his sexual demands.
Another relevant parallel between medieval and modern Islamic views exists: white women were and continue to be seen as sexually promiscuous by nature—essentially “provoking” Muslim men into lusting after them.
Much of this is discussed in Byzantium Viewed by the Arabs by Nadia Maria El Cheikh. She writes:
Fitna, [an Islamic term] meaning disorder and chaos, refers also to the beautiful femme fatale who makes men lose their self-control. Fitna is a key concept in defining the dangers that women, more particularly their bodies, were capable of provoking in the mental universe of the Arab Muslims.
After explaining how the fair haired/eyed Byzantine woman exemplified Islam’s femme fatale of fitna, Cheikh writes:
In our [Muslim] texts, Byzantine women are strongly associated with sexual immorality…
Our sources show not Byzantine women but [Muslim] writers’ images of these women, who served as symbols of the eternal female—constantly a potential threat, particularly due to blatant exaggerations of their sexual promiscuity….
Cheikh documents how Muslims claimed that Byzantine (or “white Christian”) females were the “most shameless women in the whole world”; that, “because they find sex more enjoyable, they are prone to adultery”; that “adultery is commonplace in the cities and markets of Byzantium”—so much so that “the nuns from the convents went out to the fortresses to offer themselves to monks.”
While the one quality that our [Muslim] sources never deny is the beauty of Byzantine women, the image that they create in describing these women is anything but beautiful. Their depictions are, occasionally, excessive, virtually caricatures, overwhelmingly negative….
Such anecdotes [of sexual promiscuity] are clearly far from Byzantine reality and must be recognized for what they are: attempts to denigrate and defame a rival culture through their exaggeration of the laxity with which Byzantine culture dealt with its women….
In fact, in Byzantium, women were expected to be retiring, shy, modest, and devoted to their families and religious observances…. [T]he behavior of most women in Byzantium was a far cry from the depictions that appear in Arabic sources.”
Based on all the above, some historic facts emerge: Byzantium was long viewed by early Muslims as the most powerful, advanced, and wealthy “infidel” empire, one highly desired—not unlike modern Islamic views of the West today. And Byzantine women, or “white women,” were long viewed as the “femme fatale” of Islam—from a carnal perspective, the most desired, from a pious perspective, the most despised of women.
Turning to today, we find all these same patterns at work—including the idea that “white women” are naturally promiscuous and provoke pious Muslim men into raping them. Thus last December in the UK, while a Muslim man raped a British woman, he told her that “you white women are good at it”—thereby echoing that ancient Islamic motif concerning the alleged promiscuity of white women.
The UK is also home to one of the most notorious Muslim-led sex ring scandals: in Rotherham and elsewhere, thousands of young native British girls have been systematically groomed, trafficked, beaten and sexually abused by Muslims—even as the “multiculturalist” authorities and police stood by and watched. (For more on the UK scandal and Islamic law on sex slavery click here).
In fact, all throughout Europe—particularly in the Nordic nations—thousands of “Byzantine-type” women have been violently raped and egregiously beaten by Muslims. In Norway, Denmark, and Sweden—where fair hair and eyes predominate—rape has astronomically risen since those nations embraced the doctrine of multiculturalism and opened their doors to tens of thousands of Muslim immigrants.
According to Gatestone Institute, “Forty years after the Swedish parliament unanimously decided to change the formerly homogenous Sweden into a multicultural country, violent crime has increased by 300% and rapes by 1,472%.” The overwhelming majority of rapists are Muslim immigrants. The epidemic is so bad that some blonde haired Scandinavian women are dying their hair black in the hopes of warding off potential Muslim predators.
Nor is this phenomenon a product of chance; some modern day Muslims actually advocate for it. Back in 2011, a female politician and activist trying to combat sexual immorality in Kuwait suggested that Muslims import white sex slaves. After explaining how she once asked Islamic clerics living in the city of Mecca concerning the legality of sex slavery and how they all confirmed it to be perfectly legitimate, she explained:
A Muslim state must [first] attack a Christian state—sorry, I mean any non-Muslim state—and they [the women, the future sex slaves] must be captives of the raid. Is this forbidden? Not at all; according to Islam, sex slaves are not at all forbidden. [See here, here, and here for more on Islamic law and sex slavery.]
As for what sort of “infidel” women are ideal, the Kuwaiti activist suggested Russian women (most of whom are fair haired and eyed; ironically, Russia is often seen as Byzantium’s successor):
In the Chechnya war, surely there are female Russian captives. So go and buy those and sell them here in Kuwait; better that than have our men engage in forbidden sexual relations. I don’t see any problem in this, no problem at all.
In short, the ongoing epidemic in the UK, Scandinavia and elsewhere—whereby Muslim men sexually target white women—is as old as Islam, has precedents with the prophet and his companions, and, till this day, is being recommended as a legitimate practice by some in the Muslim world.
SOURCE: FPMRaymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, a Judith Friedman Rosen Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum and a CBN News contributor. He is the author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (2013) and The Al Qaeda Reader (2007).
Shboul’s essay is found in Arab-Byzantine Relations in Early Islamic Times (ed. Michael Bonner, Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, 2004), 240, 248.
This apologetic approach is also found in modern academic works discussing the janissaries—European Christian boys who were seized by the Ottoman Empire, converted to and indoctrinated in Islam, trained to be jihadis extraordinaire, and then unleashed on their former Christian families. Although young, terrified boys were seized from the clutches of their devastated parents, modern academics claim that Christian families actually hoped their boys would be taken and trained as janissaries, as this would ensure that they have a “bright future” in the Ottoman hierarchy.
Arabic tafsir here: http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=5&tSoraNo=9&tAyahNo=49&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1 A shorter version of the narrative also appears in Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad (trans. A. Guillaume, NY: Oxford University Press, 1997), 602-603.
Nadia Maria el Cheikh, Byzantium Viewed by the Arabs (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004), 123-129.
“Real leaders are not called to lead up consensus they are to mold consensus, and without a doubt, this will create enemies.”
When you see a leader taking a stand and, as a result, his life is threatened, gets dumped by his sponsors, condemned by the establishment “politicians” and taken out of context by the state-controlled media, you have to understand that he is not one that is going along to get along, but rather is a genuine leader. This, in many cases, is the identifying characteristic when it comes to what a leader looks and acts like. And real leaders are what is needed in America (Rev. 5:5).
What is a leader? Often, when making a new contact, I will first vet them before allying myself (Amos 3:3). After all, there is a huge difference between a public person and a leader.
For example, I had a very well-known preacher come to stay out at my place, but before having him come out I went and vetted him to see what his enemies were saying of him (John 15:17-18). Lo and behold, I discovered he had many unlawful and un-American enemies attacking his ministry. He was leading, not asking permission to do so. At every turn, he seemed to be in trouble for standing up for righteousness and the laws of our republic (Matthew 5:10; Luke 6:22-26).
“Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
In contrast, how many of today’s self-positioned leaders, regardless if they are preachers, patriots or conservatives, are as worthless as the ones whom they complain about? After all, they have a reputation to keep up (Philippians 2:7-9). They go along to get along. They don’t offend anyone because they do not stand for anything; and if they were to have enemies, someone might think ill of them for actually taking a stand for what is right. Of course, they cannot have that (Gal. 6:12).
In the conservative movement (today’s conservatives are yesterday’s liberals), for example, you have a bunch of men who are no more than paper tigers. They play the politically correct game as long as it is safe enough for them to hide behind their computers and get away with whatever it is that they write. Because they live under a false pretense, they are too spineless to actually fight for what they say that they love (2 Timothy 4:7; Jude 1:3).
As a matter of fact, when it comes to the fight, which is the furthest thing from their minds, they say, “Let someone else do the fighting,” demonstrating their lack of integrity. They love their country so much that their degree of sacrifice is going to another fruitless conference to be seen and talk. Of course, it goes no further than talk (Matthew 15:8).
They hide behind a title, watching the game of life and telling everyone how they are to live their lives, but not applying it to themselves (Jeremiah 9:3; Malachi 2:2). Hypocrites!
Search out your favorite patriot, preacher or conservative and see what they stand for. If there is no opposition, it means they are not standing.
What of the women? I am not here talking about the women that are laying it down, doing what the men ought to be doing. I high five these brave and classy women such as Pamela Geller, Brigitte Gabriel, Katherine Albrecht and others.
I am talking of the conservative women, which you can find everywhere but where they ought to be, and with someone else except who they ought to be with. These conservative women act like little 15-year-old cheerleaders who did not get their fill of attention in high school. Now they have brought it into adulthood. To them, the fight for liberty is some sort of fashion show fantasy. The sad fact is that everyone sees them for what they are; and that is “little, immature, snotty girls” who never grew up mentally, but are trapped in the body of 50 or 60-year-old woman.
These women love the limelight so much that everything is sacrificed, including their families. This is all for the opportunity to be seen by men (Matthew 23:5). They love their titles too, and don’t forget to add them to their names when they are out in public. Apparently these women do not have the right people around them that actually love them enough to tell them to grow up and raise their families (Titus 2:4-5).
Do a search on these worldlings and you will find nothing that proves the contrary to what I am saying.
Herein lies the problem with the America we know. These profess to be one thing. Yet, in reality, they are the opposite. They are no different than what they complain about (1 Kings 18:21). In short, these people are the problem (Philippians 3:18). They contend that they want peace in a world that is at war with what they profess to believe in, but they do not go to war to have it set right (John 16:33).
These self-positioned leaders fail to understand that men follow courage and not titles (Mark 8:27). They believe that it is their position to be served rather than being the ones who are to serve (Luke 22:27).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-n17z6CjZMBradlee Dean is an ordained preacher, heavy metal drummer, talk-show host of the Sons of Liberty Radio, and speaks on college and high school campuses with his ministry, You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International. @BradleeDean1]]>
They buy and sell the women, using them as slaves. They kidnap children, even infants, and detonate them as bombs. As the Islamic State tightens its grip on Syria and Iraq, the horror of its atrocities reaches unimaginable depths. And what remains of Christianity in the Middle East is dying, massacred through the torture, displacement, and murder of an entire population.
Now, former Congressman Frank Wolf, R-Va., is calling on the U.S. government and the United Nations to declare the rampage a genocide. “Genocidal intent can clearly be seen in Islamic State’s ideology and mission which is directed toward the creation of a global caliphate that has been purged of every man, woman, and child deemed to be an ‘unbeliever’ through either forced conversion or death,” Wolf, now a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the 21st Century Wilberforce Initiative, a Christian human rights group, wrote last week in a letter to President Obama. “In Iraq, this has manifested most clearly in the insurgency’s actions against Christians and Yezidis. They have been killed, tortured, kidnapped, raped, sold into slavery, and forcibly removed from their territorial homeland.”
Indeed, the stories coming out of Syria and Iraq about the plight of religious minorities there are more than soul-searing: they nearly defy credibility in their hideousness. A cover story in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, for instance, describes the abduction of a 3-year-old girl from her mother, and the separation of captives into “healthy” and “infirm” groups, a gesture chillingly reminiscent of the Holocaust. Often, there is a third group, comprised of women, soon to be sold as sex slaves.
Other reports are equally gruesome. The children born to these captured women, Wolf wrote, who are repeatedly raped by ISIS soldiers, and raised “to conform to the insurgency’s interpretation of ‘pure’ Islam.”
“ISIS has kidnapped and forcibly transferred the children of Christians and Yezidis, including children as young as seven months,” Wolf added. “Reports indicate that these children are being intimidated and brainwashed in order to create the next generation of radical insurgents.” For this reason, “it is imperative that the issue be brought immediately before the Security Council and that a declaration of genocide be made.”
Wolf’s entreaty stands on solid research, including a report based on interviews 21st-century Wilberforce conducted with 75 people in the region. The report quotes one Christian leader: “This is not just the end of Christianity, but the end of our ethnicity who have lived here for thousands of years.” And a priest now living in Beirut told theTimes, “We’re afraid our whole society will vanish.”
The Yezidi community – or what remains of it – is of particular concern, having been nearly decimated in 2014. Tens of thousands of Yezidis were driven from their homes by ISIS militants, and forced onto Mt. Sinjar, where hundreds of men were killed and women were brutally and systematically raped. According to the Wilberforce report, “Approximately 700 girls were held, including a 7-month-old who had been kidnapped from her family to be raised by IS. The girls were separated according to eye color, and members of IS were allowed to choose the young women according to personal preference.”
The persecution of Christian and other minority groups by the Islamic State has, in fact, been described as “genocide” by any number of civil rights groups already, and the UN stated in a March report that IS “may have committed” genocide. President Obama also referred to genocide in draft legislation requesting the use of force against ISIS this past February.
But both the Obama administration and the U.N. have fallen short of issuing a formal accusation of genocide under the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment for the Crime of Genocide. Such a declaration could potentially permit the use of military force (if approved by the UN Security Council), said Antonia Chayes, a professor of international politics and law at the Fletcher School.
“Current support for U.S. bombing in Syria is based on collective self-defense invoked by Iraq,” Chayes told me. “But the additional declaration of genocide could possibly add weight to arguments for military force placed before the UN Security Council.”
For now, Wolf has proposed a six-point plan, which would include creating an oasis for religious minorities in the Nineveh Plain; support of the Kurdistan Regional Government’s “efforts to build a context of civil discourse, freedom of religion, human wrights protection and the inclusion of all minorities; education assistance for displaced Christians and Yezidis; and investigations and the prosecution of the Islamic state for crimes against humanity and genocide.”
These are heroic goals, and certainly worth striving for. And Wolf is right that the United States can and must take a leading role.
But will it make any difference?
Abigail R. Esman, the author, most recently, ofRadical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy in the West (Praeger, 2010), is a freelance writer based in New York and the Netherlands.
SOURCE: IPT NEWS
The age of electrification across the transportation sector, the solar panel revolution, and Tesla’s battery gigafactory are igniting a battle for the cheapest battery. That will transform lithium into a boom-time mineral and the hottest commodity on the energy investor’s radar. It has been easy to take lithium for granted. This wonder mineral is the backbone of our everyday lives, popping up in everything from the glass in our windows to our mountains of electronics.
And while investors have long appreciated the steady rise in demand for this preferred mineral, the number of new applications continues to multiply. Smart phones, tablets, laptops, and other consumer electronics demand more lithium. But the largest driver for future lithium use will be in electric vehicles and home batteries for solar panels. That has lithium on the verge a boom for which supply can no longer be taken for granted.
Not since the shale boom have we seen a market transformation of such significance. Lithium has long been used for a variety of mundane purposes, and while the variety is spectacular—with applications in everything from glass, ceramics and greases to a line-up of industrial process—it has flown under the radar for most investors.
Supply has always largely managed to keep pace with steadily rising demand for lithium, and while the mineral is slated for growth with or without the ‘battery explosion’, Tesla’s gigafactory will spark a phenomenal spike in demand that will be no less exciting than the shale boom.
Not only will battery gigafactories change an already attractive lithium demand picture, but the suppliers themselves will change, making way for newer entrants—with more foresight and better technology–that will provide some of the best investment opportunities in the sector.
The lithium story cannot be told without first telling the Tesla story. Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) is developing a cheaper line of electric cars for release later this decade, and to achieve this it is constructing a $5-billion gigafactory to build 500,000 electric cars with the objective of lowering the cost of batteries by at least 30 percent.
Moreover, around one-quarter of the plant’s capacity may be for Tesla’s stationary storage business, which also sells backup batteries for homes, businesses and utilities—all fueled by lithium.
According to Tesla’s brainchild, Elon Musk, demand for stationary storage batteries has skyrocketed to the point that an expansion of the gigafactory may have to be considered before it is even built.
Musk is eyeing a “complete transformation of the entire energy infrastructure of the world to completely sustainable zero carbon,” and what he’s talking about here is lithium-battery production on a mind-blowing scale. Tesla is planning to produce more lithium-ion batteries in this factory than in the entire global marketplace combined.
Lithium—the lightest and most versatile of the metals—is the backbone of this exploding battery market. Lithium is already a key part of our everyday lives, but as batteries become the rule of the day in a new global energy picture, demand for lithium is soaring—and we are only at the beginning of this curve.
Battery manufacturers across the board are moving to lithium because it has the highest electric output per unit weight. And nowhere will this demand soar more than with the production of hybrid, plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles used by everyone from Toyota (NYSE:TM), Honda (NYSE:HMC), Nissan (NYSE:NSANY), Renault (EPA:RNO), and Mitsubishi (NYSE:MSBHY), to Ford (NYSE:F), Chevrolet and GM (NYSE:GM). And of course Tesla Motors. Without lithium, there will be no gigafactory. In fact, this factory alone will need 15,000 tons of lithium carbonate a year just to get started.
We are on the edge of a profound competition over batteries as Tesla drives down lithium-ion battery production costs, lowers the benchmark and increases cost competition. The response will be new entrants to this market, and competing battery gigafactories.
Tesla’s competitors will make this one of the biggest battles of the century—a battle the entirely depends on lithium supply. Tesla’s biggest rival will likely be Build Your Dreams (BYD), the Chinese automaker backed by Warren Buffet. Already, BYD is building electric buses on American soil and has global gigafactory ambitions. By the end of the year, according to Reuters, BYD should have 10 GWh of battery production capacity, which it expects to increase to 34 GWh by 2020 with a new factory in Brazil—about the same capacity as Tesla’s.
Other Tesla rivals rushing to the battery production scene will be iPhone manufacturer Foxconn and LG Chem, which is already one of the top three battery makers. Samsung is also hot on the trail, having just acquired Magna’s battery production division.
According to Credit Suisse, the lithium industry is “poised for significant volume growth,” which could lead to shortages of supply. As a result producers of lithium are set to enjoy significant earnings throughout the decade.
Even before Tesla’s gigafactory – and its rivals – entered the picture, global lithium consumption had doubled in the decade before 2012, driven largely by its use in lithium-ion batteries for cell phones and power tools. Then electric cars hit the scene in earnest, further boosting demand for lithium, while Tesla’s gigafactory is expected to use up as much as 17 percent of the existing lithium supply, according to Fortune magazine, citing Goldman Sachs.
For investors who are just catching on to the lithium battery revolution, the best way to play the game is to look past the traditional lithium producers. In this boom scenario, investors will be looking at companies with the lowest market caps, solid management and highly prospective deposits.
Currently, lithium is not traded as a commodity; rather, it is managed through a kind of oligopoly situation where there are three or four major suppliers globally and they have rather successfully managed supply and demand for lithium over the past decades. Because of this, everything is priced on a contract basis.
“The problem is that these three or four major suppliers have been responsible for supply and demand but they are not going to be able to meet new demand for lithium,” Dr. Andy Robinson, a Ph.D. in Geochemistry and the COO of Pure Energy Minerals (OTMKTS:HMGLF), told Oilprice.com.
As Robinson points out, however, not all lithium is equal. It’s sold in different types for different prices. For instance, lithium carbonate sells for around $6,000 per ton and is used to make some of the materials for new battery technology. However, many of the new battery technologies—particularly those used by Tesla—use lithium hydroxide as the starting material, which trades at around $2,000 more per ton than lithium carbonate.
And lithium found in salty water, or brines, is by far the most cost effective. According to Dr. Robinson, “brine is the best way to produce lithium because it’s so cheap, as nature has done all the hard work in rendering the lithium into a form that is easy to extract from the ground. All you have to do is drill a few wells and pump the liquid brine.”
Furthermore, there are only a few places in the world where lithium is present at high enough concentrations in these salty brines and the most famous is in the Atacama Desert, in the “Lithium Triangle” of Bolivia, Argentina and Chile. Supply here is threatened by corruption and politics, making it difficult to capitalize on burgeoning demand.
When Tesla’s gigafactory comes online, everyone will be looking for cost-effective lithium sources closer to home, which brings us full circle to the state of Nevada, where Pure Energy Minerals has the only potential future brine resource in North America. The only other brine resources are located in China, are much smaller and are controlled by Chinese companies.
Lithium is increasingly the tech of choice for battery banks across the board, and when Tesla’s gigafactory is producing batteries one year from now, the winners in this emerging battery boom will be those behind the lithium, and those following the brine.
By James Stafford of Oilprice.com]]>
The vital importance of America’s immigration and inspection laws.
Michael Cutler | Front Page Magazine
Recently Bill O’Reilly interviewed Senator Chuck Grassley about Kate’s Law, legislation currently being drafted in the United States Senate to address the issue of sanctuary cities and the unlawful reentry of aggravated felon aliens who had been convicted of committing felonies prior to being deported from the United States. That law was prompted by the murder of Kathryn Steinle, a 32-year-old woman alleged killed by an illegal alien from Mexico, Francisco Sanchez, who had been previously convicted of seven felonies and had been deported five times.
During the interview O’Reilly said that he thought it was a “no brainer” for criminal aliens to be prosecuted if they unlawfully reenter the United States after deportation.
However, O’Reilly, dismissively stated that he had no problem with “law abiding illegal aliens” who are “simply” working in the United States. Pairing the phrase “law abiding” with the term “illegal aliens” is an oxymoron. How can a person who violated our nation’s most fundamental laws that were enacted to protect national security, public safety and the jobs of Americans be considered “law abiding”?
The immigration system must have integrity
The immigration system must have integrity. Local authorities must never have the discretion to unilaterally decide which immigration detainers should be honored and what should be done with aliens who are encountered, but must leave those decisions to federal authorities.
Our immigration laws were enacted to achieve the primary goals of protecting national security and the lives of innocent people while also protecting the jobs of American workers. This is as reasonable and commonsense as a homeowner looking through the peephole of the front door to make certain that strangers with malevolent intentions not be given access to their homes.
While it is routinely claimed that there are about 12 million illegal aliens present in the United States today, the actual number is likely a multiple of that number. Foreign workers, both legal and illegal, have a common goal: They seek to send money home. Each year our economy loses a minimum of $125 billion in remittances. That number may actually be as high as $200 billion. When the multiplier effect is taken into account, the remittances alone account for more than the annual increase in the U.S. national debt. This is without considering wage suppression of American workers and the flat-out displacement of American workers, who, through no fault of their own, go from being tax-paying middle class working consumers to members of the increasing number of Americans who live below the poverty line, suffering the personal consequences this brings and causing them to rely on costly economic safety net programs, further hammering the U.S. economy.
As an INS agent I was far happier arresting aliens engage in violent crime and, indeed, I spent half of my 30 year assigned to narcotics investigations at the Unified Intelligence Division of the DEA and subsequent promotion to the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force where I worked closely with the DEA, FBI, ATF and other federal and state law enforcement agencies. However, while we all feel empathy for illegal aliens fleeing poverty in their home countries, the current situation is unsustainable for the United States in many ways. Today the “American lifeboat” is overcrowded and close to capsizing.
American lifeboat is close to capsizing
The United States spends billions of dollars each year to conduct the inspection of people seeking to enter the United States and cargo being shipped to the United States.
By making his statement mentioned above, Mr. O’Reilly created a very dangerous impression that will likely influence the millions of viewers who watch his program — that our immigration laws are relatively minor and violations of those laws are insignificant in the scheme of things.
Nothing could be further from the truth. His cavalier pronouncements are dangerous.
Terrorists can’t hurt us if they can’t get in
Consider the first paragraph found in the preface of the The 9/11 Commission Staff Report on Terrorist Travel:
It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.
I would love to ask Mr. O’Reilly and those who share his mistaken belief that violations of our immigration laws are so insignificant that illegal aliens can still be “law abiding” the following questions:
Would you be okay with ending the inspections of passengers and cargo arriving on international airline flights from around the world?
Would you feel comfortable having flights from Paris, France; Bogota, Colombia; Karachi, Pakistan; Lagos, Nigeria and Kingston, Jamaica pull into gates at the airport next to the domestic arrivals and permit the passengers on those international flights to disembark, grab their bags and head for a taxi without speaking to a single CBP (Customs and Border Protection) official?
Would it be okay if they did not carry any reliable identity documents such as passports?
If, as I expect, Mr. O’Reilly would find this proposal disturbing then he needs to get real about the true importance of our immigration laws and those who would circumvent the inspections process conducted at ports of entry or otherwise violate those laws.
Aliens who run our borders are trespassing. As I have previously noted in earlier commentaries, on October 14, 2014 CBS News reported, “Mayor De Blasio Heads to D.C. For Meetings On NYC Security And Counter-Terrorism.” According to the report, Senator Schumer, the leader of the “Gang of Eight” who has been the strongest advocate for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, has proposed federal legislation that would impose a maximum jail sentence of five years for anyone trespassing on a nationally recognized landmark or critical infrastructure. Here is an excerpt from that article:
While individuals like this (trespassers) may have meant no harm, their acts put commuters and first responders at risk,” Schumer said. “They also inspire copycats who may have much more evil plans in mind.”Critical infrastructure is defined by the Patriot Act as systems and assets so vital to the U.S., that the incapacity or destruction to them would have a debilitating effect.[…]“When stunts like this occur, the New York City trespassing law has a maximum of one year and it’s often three months,” Schumer said. “That’s not enough punishment to deter this behavior. It’s time to change that.”
Routine immigration enforcement essential for national security
My July 10, 2015 opinion piece for The Daily Caller, “Sanctuary Cities: No Peace And No Justice.” addressed the true importance of routine immigration law enforcement as being essential for national security and as a means of combating the threat of terrorism. To bolster my argument I provided an excerpt from the 9/11 Commission Report. In that article I introduced the 9/11 excerpt this way:
Aliens who run our borders are trespassing and we have no way of knowing why they actually evaded the inspections process conducted at ports of entry by CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors. We may find it all but impossible to know their true identities and therefore knowing if they are fugitives from justice in another country, perhaps wanted for crimes of extreme violence. We don’t know if they are involved with criminal or terrorists organizations.Consider this excerpt from Chapter 12 of the 9/11 Commission Report:Looking back, we can also see that the routine operations of our immigration laws-that is, aspects of those laws not specifically aimed at protecting against terrorism-inevitably shaped al Qaeda’s planning and opportunities. Because they were deemed not to be bona fide tourists or students as they claimed, five conspirators that we know of tried to get visas and failed, and one was denied entry by an inspector. We also found that had the immigration system set a higher bar for determining whether individuals are who or what they claim to be-and ensuring routine consequences for violations-it could potentially have excluded, removed, or come into further contact with several hijackers who did not appear to meet the terms for admitting short-term visitors.Our investigation showed that two systemic weaknesses came together in our border system’s inability to contribute to an effective defense against the 9/11 attacks: a lack of well-developed counterterrorism measures as a part of border security and an immigration system not able to deliver on its basic commitments, much less support counterterrorism. These weaknesses have been reduced but are far from being overcome.
An important observation is in order. The last sentence of the above excerpt states that “[t]hese weaknesses have been reduced but are far from being overcome.” The report was published more than a decade ago. Today, executive orders issued by the administration, coupled with the sanctuary policies of towns, cities and states across the United States, have not simply rolled back the gains that had been made, but have created many more vulnerabilities in the immigration system than were present on September 11, 2001.
On September 23, 2014 FrontPage Magazine published my article, “‘Sanctuary Cities’ or ‘Safe Havens’ for Terrorists?” In this article I focused on numerous terrorists who gamed the immigration benefits program to acquire lawful status ranging from political asylum to lawful immigrant status and even United States citizenship.
O’Reilly is not the only television personality to make presumptions that may be well-intentioned but nevertheless mislead our fellow citizens and, consequently, our political leaders.
Think of how many times the celebrity “journalists” are quick to offer their opinions about how it is “reasonable” to provide lawful status to a heretofore illegal alien who has been living illegally in the United States for a specific period of time, such as 5 years, 10 years, etc.
This perspective may resonate with the television audience as the panelist on the program smiles into the camera with that knowing look of confidence. Generally most of the others on the panel will readily agree, calling such an approach “reasonable and commonsense.”
No difference between 5 days and 5 years
Reality is often far different from hypotheticals. Because the number of applications would number in the millions — more likely tens of millions — there would be no face-to-face interviews and no field investigations. No record of entry is created when aliens run our borders. This is an invitation to massive fraud. Adjudication Officers will face extreme pressure to approve nearly all of the applications to keep up with the onslaught of applications. It only takes minutes to approve an application but may well take hours if not days to deny a single application.
The bottom line: If you believe that an illegal alien who claims to have entered the United States 5 years ago should be given lawful status — given the reality of such a situation — you had better be willing to provide illegal aliens who ran our borders 5 days ago lawful status because it will be all but impossible to verify when these individuals actually entered the United States.
Undoubtedly aggravated felon aliens must face significant enhanced penalties for unlawful reentry after deportation, as compared with aliens who have no criminal convictions. As I have noted in many of my articles, more than 30 years ago I worked with then Senator Al D’Amato to create the law that is currently on the books that calls for a maximum of 20 years in prison for such aliens who are deported and then unlawfully return. Non-criminal aliens who are deported and return unlawfully face a maximum of two years in prison.
On June 26, 2015 Californians for Population Stabilization posted my commentary, “Prosecutorial Deception: The $21 Billion DHS Betrayal.”
I began my article with the following:
On June 17, 2015, the House Subcommittee on National Security and the Subcommittee on Health Care, Benefits and Administrative Rules, conducted a joint oversight hearing concerning “A Review of the President’s Executive Actions on Immigration.”DHS Inspector General (IG) John Roth testified at this hearing along with the directors of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services). Those agencies, as well as CBP (Customs and Border Protection), all operate under the aegis of DHS (The Department of Homeland Security).Roth’s prepared testimony disclosed his concerns about how the administration has “addressed” the immigration crisis in the United States – by implementing executive orders to inhibit immigration enforcement personnel from doing their jobs. He noted that for each of the past two fiscal years, ICE, CBP and USCIS, collectively, received approximately $21 billion. The obvious question is: “What we are getting for that huge expenditure of money?”
In his candid testimony, John Roth made it clear that the failures of the administration to enforce the immigration laws and the implementation of executive orders, public safety and national security were compromised. Here is a key passage:
DHS also does not collect other prosecutorial discretion-related data that might help immigration efforts. For example, DHS would benefit from capturing information regarding aliens who are granted prosecutorial discretion and later commit a crime or pose a threat to national security and public safety.National security and public safety are similarly seriously compromised when when law enforcement officials on the city or state level refuse to honor detainers and refuse to notify the federal immigration authorities about aliens who have been arrested.
On March 21, 2012, the Huffington Post published an extremely disturbing article that was entitled: “Peter King: Iran May Have ‘Hundreds’ Of Hezbollah Agents In U.S.”
The basis for the Huffington Post article was a hearing that was conducted that day by the House Committee on Homeland Security that is chaired by Congressman Peter King of New York, the topic of the hearing was, “Iran, Hezbollah, and the Threat to the Homeland.”
Here is how the Huffington Post article began:
Iranian-backed Hezbollah agents, not al Qaeda operatives, may pose the greatest threat on U.S. soil as tensions over Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program ratchet up, according to the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security.“As Iran moves closer to nuclear weapons and there is increasing concern over war between Iran and Israel, we must also focus on Iran’s secret operatives and their number one terrorist proxy force, Hezbollah, which we know is in America,” said New York Rep. Peter King at a Wednesday hearing of his committee.The hearing, which featured former government officials and the director of intelligence analysis for the New York Police Department, follows a foiled plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassadorin Washington, D.C., and testimony by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in late January that Iran’s leaders are “more willing to conduct an attack inside the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime.”Opening the hearing, King said, “We have a duty to prepare for the worst,” warning there may be hundreds of Hezbollah operatives in the United States, including 84 Iranian diplomats at the United Nations and in Washington who, “it must be presumed, are intelligence officers.”
On January 9, 2002 CNN posted a report, “Another hijacker was stopped for traffic violation” that noted that a number of the 9/11 terrorists had been stopped by police officers when they committed motor vehicle law violations days before the attacks of 9/11.
Local law enforcement agencies must work in close cooperation and coordination with ICE and other federal law enforcement agencies. In the wake of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 much was made of the failures of the various intelligence and law enforcement agencies that failed to communicate, share information and work cooperatively. Police departments are important in combating not only crime but terrorism.
Former Speaker of the House of Representatives Thomas “Tip” O’Neill famously remarked that all politics is local. In point of fact, all law enforcement is also, as is our war on terror.
On September 11, 2001 international terrorists launched an attack against the United States of America and its allies around the world. Yet, their attacks impacted local buildings in lower Manhattan, the Pentagon and the field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
Many local and state police departments are quick to snap up the money that the federal government provides to combat terrorism. There is no such thing as a “free lunch.” These local and state law enforcement agencies are indeed elements in our ongoing “war on terror” and need to conduct themselves appropriately and perhaps spend some time reviewing “The 9/11 Commission Report” and the companion document, “The 9/11 Commission Staff Report on Terrorist Travel.”
Where the loss of human life is concerned, there are no “do-overs.”
Front Page MagazineABOUT MICHAEL CUTLER
Michael Cutler is a retired Senior Special Agent of the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) whose career spanned some 30 years. He served as an Immigration Inspector, Immigration Adjudications Officer and spent 26 years as an agent who rotated through all of the squads within the Investigations Branch. For half of his career he was assigned to the Drug Task Force. He has testified before well over a dozen congressional hearings, provided testimony to the 9/11 Commission as well as state legislative hearings around the United States and at trials where immigration is at issue. He hosts his radio show, “The Michael Cutler Hour,” on Friday evenings on BlogTalk Radio. His personal website is http://michaelcutler.net/.]]>