Donald Trump, Bill Whittle and Republican Principles


In 2012, after Mitt Romney lost the presidential election, Bill Whittle delivered an address on Republican principles. The Timid Republican Party has substantially ignored those principles and is not guided by them. Party candidates nevertheless continue to mouth them at election time. Perhaps they understand what the voters want and recite their fealty to get their votes. Once safely in office, they revert to ignoring those same principles.

During the current Republican nomination process, the Establishment has chastised Donald Trump for not being a “real” Republican and not adhering to Republican principles — the principles which they themselves ignore, by which he abides and by which as our President he will continue to abide. As they cringe at his refusal to mince words and to be politically correct, they seem uncomfortable with his wealth and his decision to finance his own primary campaign. Trump is very comfortable with being rich and is rightfully proud of what he has been able to do because of it — including not being subservient to wealthy donors and donor collectives to which Establishment members are themselves subservient.

While watching the video, please ponder what Trump would say — and do — as our candidate and then as our President.

It strikes me that Trump and Whittle care more about “Republican principles” than do members of the Republican Establishment. Trump is substantially more likely to support and adhere to those principles than the Party Establishment has, and than any candidate it would prefer has or would. In recent months, the “unwashed vulgarian” Republican masses have shown that they do as well. They are right.

 

Posted in 2016 elections, Bill Whittle, Democrats, Donald Trump, Republican establishment, Republican principles, Vulgarians | Tagged , , , , , , | 8 Comments

Obama, the Iran Scam, Ben Rhodes and Public Credulity


A recent article by David Samuels at the New York Times Magazine, based on an interview with Obama’s foreign policy guru Ben Rhodes, purported to explain how, and about what, the Obama administration lied to get public support for the Iran Scam. According to the article, the principal Obama lie involved who was the Iranian president when the negotiations with Iran began. It’s much deeper and worse than that. As Paul Harvey would say, “Here’s “the rest of the story.” 

Iranian President Rouhani was elected on June 15, 2013 and assumed office on August 3d. According to Rhodes,

negotiations started when the ostensibly moderate Hassan Rouhani was elected president, providing an opening for the administration to reach out in friendship. In reality, as Samuels gets administration officials to admit, negotiations began when “hardliner” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was still president. [Emphasis added.]

There is no necessary inconsistency — about a month and a half elapsed between Rouhani’s election and becoming the Iranian president. However, that is of little if any consequences.

Mr. Rosen, interviewed in the above video, touches, very briefly, on other problems with the Iran scam. Back in the world of reality, “we” had been negotiating with Iran during Ahmadinejad’s presidency for a couple of years, during which “we” gave Iran everything it requested. This article is intended to provide substantially more information and analysis of what happened and why during “our” secret bilateral negotiations with Iran.

The Negotiations

According to interviews with Iranian vice president and Atomic Energy Organization head Ali Akbar Salehi, translated and published by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) on August 17, 2015, secret bilateral negotiations between the Obama and Iranian regimes had begun much earlier and included Obama’s Assistant Secretary of State, William Burns. During those negotiations, the U.S. conceded that Iran’s right to Uranium enrichment would be respected, that Iran’s missile programs would be left out of any deal and that its efforts to develop nuclear warheads and other devices would be ignored. Obama had essentially caved in to Iran’s demands even before the existence of negotiations was acknowledged.

In an interview published in the daily Iran on August 4, 2015 under the title “The Black Box of the Secret Negotiations between Iran and America,” Iranian vice president and Atomic Energy Organization head Ali Akbar Salehi, who is a senior member of Iran’s negotiation team and was foreign minister under president Ahmadinejad, revealed new details on the secret bilateral talks between Iran and the U.S. that started during Ahmadinejad’s second presidential term. According to Salehi, U.S. Secretary of Energy Dr. Ernest Moniz, whom Salehi knew from his period as a doctoral student at MIT, was appointed to the American negotiation team at Salehi’s request, a request which the Americans met within hours. [Emphasis added.]

Salehi added that Khamenei agreed to open a direct channel of negotiations between Iran and the U.S. on the condition that the talks would yield results from the start and would not deal with any other issue, especially not with U.S.-Iran relations. Following this, Salehi demanded, via the Omani mediator Sultan Qaboos, that the U.S. recognize Iran’s right to enrich uranium, and received a letter from Qaboos expressing such American recognition, which he relayed to Ahmadinejad.  [Emphasis added.]

The secret bilateral Iran-US negotiations had begun with a letter for Iran delivered to an Omani official. Salehi told an Omani intermediary.

‘I am not sure how serious the Americans are, but I will give you a note. Tell them that these are our demands. Deliver it on your next visit to Oman.’ I wrote down four clear issues, one of which was official recognition of rights to [uranium] enrichment. I figured that if the Americans were sincere in their offer, then they must agree to these four demands. Mr. Suri gave this short letter to the mediator, and stressed that these were Iran’s demands. [He added that]if the Americans wished to solve this issue, they were welcome to, otherwise dealing with White House proposals would be useless and unwarranted…

“All the demands in the letter were related to the nuclear challenge. These were issues we have always come against, such as closing the nuclear dossier [in the Security Council], official recognition of [Iran’s] right to enrich [uranium], and resolving the issue of Iran’s actions under the PMD [Possible Military Dimensions]. After receiving the letter, the Americans said: ‘We are certainly willing and able to easily solve the issues Iran has brought up.’ [Emphasis added.]

The first meeting between the Iranian and American negotiating teams began following eight months of coordination. Iran

sent a team to Oman that included the deputy foreign minister for European and American affairs, Mr. [Ali Asghar] Khaji, as well as several CEOs. The Americans were surprised in the first meeting and said, ‘We cannot believe this is happening. We thought Oman was joking. We aren’t even prepared for these talks with you.’

Q: What was the level of the team that the Americans dispatched?

A: It included Assistant Secretary of State William Burns. They said: ‘We only came to see if Iran was truly willing to negotiate.’ Our representative gave them the required response and eventually there were talks on this issue. The initial result was achieved and the ground was prepared for further coordination. [Emphasis added.]

Q: How were the Americans convinced that the Iranian diplomats who were dispatched had the necessary authority?

A: [Until] that phase, Iran and America had not been allowed to sit opposite each other at the negotiating table. The fact that Iran had sent a deputy foreign minister to the talks indicated its seriousness. The Americans also noticed how seriously [Iran was taking] the issue. At that meeting, Khaji pressed the Americans to set up a roadmap for the negotiations, and eventually the talks of a roadmap were postponed to the second meeting. At the second meeting, Khaji warned the Americans: ‘We did not come here for lengthy negotiations. If you are serious, you must officially recognize enrichment, otherwise we cannot enter into bilateral talks. But if you officially recognize enrichment, then we too are serious and willing to meet your concerns on the nuclear matter as part of international regulations.

International regulations were later agreed upon by the P5+1 negotiators, in the form of the Iran – IAEA secret deals concerning nuke inspections and a UN resolution dealing with Iranian missiles. Neither was included in the Joint Cooperative Plan of Action.

“Of course, at that time we were [still] exchanging various information with the Americans via the [Omani] mediation, and this is documented at the Foreign Ministry. We did not do it in the form of official letters, but rather unofficially and not on paper. The Omani mediator later came to Iran, held talks with us, and then later spoke to the Americans and told them our positions, so that the ties were not severed. But there was no possibility for direct talks.

Thus, a real opportunity was squandered because, at the time, the Americans were genuinely prepared to make real concessions to Iran. Perhaps it was God’s will that the process progressed like that and the results were [eventually] in our favor. In any case, several months passed and Obama was reelected in America [in November 2012]. I thought that, unlike the first time, we must not waste time in coordinating [within regime bodies], so with the leader’s backing and according to my personal decision, I dispatched our representatives to negotiate with the Americans in Oman. [Emphasis added.]

Q: Didn’t you have another meeting with the leader about the process and content of the talks?

A: No. Obviously during the process I wrote a letter to the leader detailing the problems. He said ‘try to solve them.’ He was always supportive but told me to ‘act in a manner that includes necessary coordination [within the regime]. In this situation, I dispatched Khaji to the second meeting in Oman (around March 2013) and it was a positive meeting. Both sides stayed in Oman for two or three days and the result was that the Omani ruler sent a letter to Ahmadinejad saying that the American representative had announced official recognition of Iran’s enrichment rights. Sultan Qaboos sent the same letter to the American president. When Ahmadinejad received the letter, several friends said that this move would be fruitless and that the Americans do not keep [their]  commitments. [But] we had advanced to this stage. [Emphasis added.]

. . . . We [then ] prepared ourselves for the third meeting with the Americans in order to set up the roadmap and detail the mutual commitments. All this happened while Iran was nearing the presidential elections [in June 2013]. At that time, the leader’s office told me that I had to cease negotiations and let the next government handle the talks after the results of the elections were known.

. . . .

Q: What was the Americans’ position in the first meetings between Iran and the P5+1 held during the Rohani government [era]?

A:After the Rohani government began to operate – along with the second term of President Obama – the new negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 were started. By then, Kerry was no longer an American senator but had been appointed secretary of state. As a senator, Kerry had been appointed by Obama to be in charge of handling the nuclear dossier, and then [in December 2012] he was appointed secretary of state. [Emphasis added.]

“Before that, the Omani mediator, who had close relations with Kerry, told us that Kerry would soon be appointed [U.S.] secretary of state. During the period when the secret negotiations with the Americans were underway in Oman, there was a situation in which it was easier to obtain concessions from the Americans. After the Rohani government and the American administration [of Obama’s second term] took power, and Kerry become secretary of state, the Americans spoke from a more assertive position. They no longer showed the same degree of eagerness to advance the negotiations. Their position became harder, and the threshold of their demands rose. At the same time, on the Iranian side, the situation [also] changed, and a most professional negotiating team took responsibility for negotiating with the P5+1. [Emphasis added.]

As to the reluctance of the American side to make concessions after Kerry had replaced Clinton as the Secretary of State, it must be remembered that “we” had already made all or most of the concessions Iran sought.

Another positive point was that [President] Rohani oversaw the dossier, knew its limits, and as a result succeeded in producing a good strategy to advance the nuclear dossier. At the same time, Rohani took responsibility for everything. Many may have reservations and ask why we were putting ourselves in danger, but Rohani’s willingness to take responsibility was very high. There are those who say, from a political standpoint, that he was willing to take a very great risk, because, had the negotiations not achieved certain results, and had the best results not been achieved, he would have faced waves of criticism. But he took upon himself the risk of [such] criticism. In any event, he agreed to take this responsibility, and, God be praised, even God helped him, and he emerged [from the negotiations] with his head held high.” [Emphasis added.]

At some point, the negotiations broke down over “technical issues.” Salehi, a technical expert as well as a diplomat, found a way to resolve those issues.

A . . .  condition was that American experts would come to Iran and talk to me. I said that as vice president I would not enter into a discussion with their experts, because as far as the protocol was concerned, this would create a bad situation and they would say that Iran would capitulate in any situation. This was not good for Iran, but I was willing to quit and to come to the talks not as vice president but as the foreign minister’s scientific advisor. Larijani said ‘he’s right.’ The next day, Fereydoun asked me to come to his office and asked me who my [American] counterpart was. I said, the [U.S.] Department of Energy. Fereydoun called Araghchi and said, ‘Tell [U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs] Ms. [Wendy] Sherman that Salehi is joining the negotiations provided that the American secretary of energy also joins the negotiators.‘ Araghchi and Sherman were the liaison between Iran and America. Araghchi said in this conversation with Fereydoun that on such short notice it was unlikely that they [i.e. the Americans] would send their secretary of energy. I heard [Fereydoun’s conversation with Araghchi]. In short, Fereydoun asked and Araghchi contacted Sherman and a few hours later a report that they welcomed Iran’s proposal arrived. [Emphasis added.]

Q: How many hours did it take before they [the Americans] said yes?

A: It didn’t take long. I went to see Fereydoun in the evening and the next day they responded. This was because of the time difference [between Tehran and Washington].

Q: The general perception was that because Moniz was brought into the negotiating team, you were brought into the Iranian team?

A: [On the contrary,] Moniz came because of me. In any case, in February [2015] I joined [the negotiations], and praise God, matters moved forward with Moniz.

Q: Did you and Moniz study together?

A: Moniz knew me more than I knew him. I saw him at the annual IAEA meeting. When I was a doctoral student at MIT, he had just been accepted as a staff member. He is five years older than me.

Q: Did you take one of his classes?

A: No. He knew me because my doctoral studies advisor was his close friend and right hand man in scientific fields. Even now he is an advisor on many of Moniz’s scientific programs. Many of my fellow students are now experts for Moniz. One of them was Mujid Kazimi, who is of Palestinian origin. He recently died. He was two years older than me but we were friends in college. After graduating, he became the head of the MIT Department of Nuclear Science and was a prominent figure who carried out many programs with Moniz.

Q: How did Moniz treat you initially?

A: In light of our prior acquaintance, he was excited. We’ve known each other for years and he treated [me] very well. Our first meeting was in public.

Q: How did you feel when you heard Moniz was coming [to the talks]?

A: I was very happy. I was assured. I said that the prestige of the Islamic Republic remained intact [because] an Iranian official would not speak to an American expert but rather would negotiate with a high-ranking American official. This was very important. Second, as I said before, he could make a decision [while] an expert could not. We had a very interesting group meeting. The American experts were same ones who had dealt with disarmament vis-à-vis the Soviet Union.

“I said [to Moniz]: ‘I cannot accept your offer for various reasons.’ One American expert said, ‘We do not accept the basic assumption of your calculations.’ I said, ‘Tell us what is the basic assumption of [your] calculations so we can work from there.’ He said ‘we can’t do that.’ I said to them, ‘If you don’t accept our estimation, then tell us [yours]. You say that you cannot because this [exposes] your process. If we show [our] calculation, you will know our working secrets.’ So then I said ‘ok, what do we do now?’ The meeting stagnated.

“Later I thought about it… and said ‘Mr. Moniz, I am here with full authority from my country. Anything I sign will be acceptable to my country. Do you have full authority as well, or does any result achieved here need to be asked and clarified with officials from other countries?’ He said ‘no, I have full authority.’

Q: Did you have full authority?

A: Yes. In the scientific discussions, I knew the level of [Iran’s] demands. I said, ‘Mr. Moniz, you made an offer to Iran, and Iran rejects it. I want to ask you a question. If you can answer it [then] I will have no problem with your offer.’ I continued and said: ‘Show me one place on earth where enrichment is taking place using the method you are demanding of us. If you can give me even a single example then I will sign on the spot and we will become the second country to enrich in this method.’ He looked [at me] and then announced that the meeting was over, and we spoke. We had the first private meeting that lasted two or three hours. He said: ‘Mr. Salehi, when I was called [out of the negotiating room, it was because] Obama wanted to speak to me. Now I am free [to continue]. What you said is acceptable [but] there are practical problems with your offer.’ I said, ‘Do you agree? Then I relinquish that proposal.’ Eventually. we reached mutual understandings on this issue. I said ‘let’s start from the top.’ This diplomatic challenge should be published in a memoir so that everyone can understand how we reached 6,000 centrifuges. It is a very nice story… [Emphasis added.]

The Aftermath

Ultimately, Iran’s right to enrich Uranium was fully recognized in the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA) and in the subsequent Joint Cooperative Plan of Action (JCPOA). As to the missile aspects of the  “possible military dimensions” of Iran’s nuclear program, neither document dealt with Iranian missiles. That was left up to the United Nations Security Council to deal with in its resolution approving the nuke “deal.” In light of Russia’s warm relations with Iran, Russia would most likely veto any proposed Security Council resolution finding Iran in violation of its missile provisions.

The “verification” mechanism was included only in separate and secret “side deal(s)” solely between Iran and the IAEA which members of the U.S. Congress were not permitted to see during the pseudo-approval process. According to Kerry, he was not permitted to see them either, but the details were “fully explained” to him.

Here’s a video of Secretary Kerry under questioning about the side deals:

Questions might have been better directed to this Kerry clone; more candid answers might have been provided.

As I wrote earlier, the Iranian nuke inspections are a sick joke.

Any pretense that the IAEA will have “any time, anywhere” access to Iran’s military sites was mere rhetoric, as acknowledged by US Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman on July 16th

“I think this is one of those circumstances where we have all been rhetorical from time to time,” Sherman said in a conference call with Israeli diplomatic reporters. “That phrase, anytime, anywhere, is something that became popular rhetoric, but I think people understood that if the IAEA felt it had to have access, and had a justification for that access, that it would be guaranteed, and that is what happened.” [Emphasis added.]

Ms. Sherman was right about the rhetorical nature of administration assertions, but wrong about IAEA access, of which there will apparently be little or none pursuant to the secret deals between Iran and the IAEA.

As I observed on August 4, 2015,

In an interview on Al Jazeera TV last week Ali Akbar Velayati, Security Adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader, stated that

United Nations nuclear inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency would not be given access to Tehran’s sensitive military nuclear sites.

. . . .

“First, allow me to emphasize that the issue of the missiles and of Iran’s defensive capabilities were not part of the negotiations to begin with,” Velayati said. [Emphasis added.]

“No matter what pressure is exerted, Iran never has negotiated and never will negotiate with others – America, Europe, or any other country – about the nature and quality of missiles it should manufacture or possess, or about the defensive military equipment that it needs. This is out of the question.” [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

Reza Najafi, Iran’s ambassador and permanent envoy to the IAEA, stated over the weekend that “no country is permitted to know the details of future inspections conducted by the IAEA.” [Emphasis added.]

Najafi’s statement could mean (a) that no details about inspection methodology will be disclosed, (b) that no details about inspection results will be disclosed or (c) both. If inspection methodologies — who did the inspections as well as when, where and how, are not disclosed, what useful purpose will they serve, other than for Iran? If details of the results of inspections are not disclosed, that will also be the case. How, in either or both cases, will the members of the P5+1 negotiating teams have sufficient information to decide whether to “snap back” sanctions — if doing so is now even possible — or anything else? [Emphasis added.]

Conclusions

One can only hope that our next president will dispose of the Iranian “deal” as a treaty which Obama refused to submit to the Congress as the Constitution requires or at least ostentatiously ignore it and grant no more concessions.

Otherwise, be not afraid; Obama the Great One — the smartest person in any room and the best President ever — has made us safe. How can one possibly be safer alive than dead?

 

Posted in Foreign policy, Iran - side deals, Iran nuke inspections, Iran scam, Iranian military sites, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, John Kerry, Media, Obama - rogue president, Obama and Iran, Obama's America, Obama's legacy, P5+1 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

What do YOU belong to?


The Demorat and Publican parties appear to believe that since we belong to them they own us and can control us. Until recently, they were right. Now, at least for the Publican Party, not so much.

The Federal Government also believes that we belong to it, that it owns us and that hordes of unelected bureaucrats can and should control us; it’s all for our own good, of course, they would say (but it’s mainly for theirs). Perhaps, if we continue to change the Publican Party, we will have opportunities to change the Federal Government as well. The Demorat Party is hopeless.

Doesn’t thinking about the loving, benign dictators who believe they own us send warm, pleasant tingles down your leg? Or was that just a painful muscle spasm? They don’t mind, so it doesn’t matter.

The Political Parties

Many if not most now belong, or have belonged, to either the Democrat or Publican party. They tend to reward us by selecting the candidates, particularly the presidential candidates, whom they believe can keep or put them in power. They work very hard to save us from having to make such difficult choices. Since we “belong” to them, it must be only fair to accede gratefully to their wishes and vote as directed. At least that seems to be their view.

Until the current presidential election cycle, it worked quite well for the establishments of both parties. This time, it has not worked at all well for the Publican establishment. Despite its efforts to have a congenial establishment member nominated, it has not succeeded. Trump now has about 1,002 of the 1,237 delegates needed to get the nomination on the first ballot; the only other candidate with a significant number of delegates, Cruz, has only 571 and appears to be crumbling in his “must win” state of Indiana, where Trump has a substantial lead in the polls.

Trump is the top choice among the solely self-reported Republicans surveyed, taking 42 percent compared to 34 percent for Cruz and 17 percent for Kasich.

The businessman is also the top choice among the self-reported independents and Democrats deemed likely to vote in the primary, leading Cruz by 10 points among that group.

While Trump holds a 13-point lead over Cruz among men, 45 to 32 percent, his lead among women is narrower — 36 to 32 percent.

According to an article by W. James Antle III at The Washington Examiner, a generally anti-Trump publication,

Ted Cruz has a problem that a win in Indiana Tuesday may or may not be able to fix.

Not only might he be unable to stop Donald Trump from winning the 1,237 delegates needed to win the Republican presidential nomination on the first ballot, but Cruz is now so far behind Trump that it will detract from the credibility of a contested convention choosing anyone else even if he is still able to force one. [Emphasis added.]

The Tea Party senator from Texas is well ahead of John Kasich, but is now in Kasich territory. He will likely need hundreds of delegates to switch in order to push him over the top.

That’s not really what Republicans had in mind.

Most reasonable contested convention scenarios assumed a certain degree of closeness in the race. “Donald is going to come out with a whole bunch of delegates,” Cruz explained in February. “We will come out with a whole bunch of delegates.”

Cruz is now 431 delegates behind Trump and 672 short of a majority. He has won 3.2 million fewer votes while Trump’s tally is now higher than Mitt Romney’s at the end of the 2012 primaries. [Emphasis added.]

Are Republicans really still contemplating handing Ted Cruz the nomination in Cleveland? Or worse, Kasich who has won only Ohio? Or some white knight who has received zero votes?

“Those are the rules!” anti-Trump Republicans exclaim. In widely misinterpreted comments, Marco Rubio argued that as a private organization it’s up to GOP delegates to decide the nomination.

“That’s the meaning of being a delegate,” he said, “is choosing a nominee who can win.”

But the delegates’ role in the nomination process has largely been a formality for forty years. The American public has come to understand their primary votes as deciding the major party nominees. And in practice, that is how it has now worked for decades. [Emphasis added.]

For the nominee selection to be made by ignoring the primary votes at a contested convention,

The delegates would regain their power at the precise time faith in the Republican establishment is at an all-time low and its preferred candidates were all rejected by the voters. Some GOP voters don’t even like the alleged Cruz-Kasich alliance. [Emphasis added.]

And it would all clearly be happening because influential Republicans didn’t like the outcome of the election. [Emphasis added.]

Yes, Trump is at risk of a contested convention because he is a weak front-runner. He is facing higher than normal intraparty opposition at this phase of the campaign.

The alternative is to nominate candidates from other factions of the party that have demonstrated that they are even weaker, people who have been rejected by an even higher percentage of Republicans.

For all the talk of Trump’s inability to win in November, national polling shows Trump with comparable support to Clinton on the Democratic side, with Cruz and Kasich not doing as well as Bernie Sanders.

Even if Cruz wins in Indiana, Trump should have easy wins in most of the remaining primary states and should, therefore, win substantially more than a majority on the first convention vote. If he does not, Cruz and Jeb Bush will be happy; or at least Cruz will be happy until the nomination goes to someone else.

Cruz cheating in Jesus name amen

I do not “belong” to any party; I am merely a registered Publican. Being either a member or a registered Publican allows one to vote in Publican primaries when they are generous enough to have them. Party caucuses? In some cases, members considered sufficiently subservient to the party establishment have at least a modest say in selecting the delegates to the national Publican convention. Those merely registered get to gripe if delegates pledged to someone they don’t want are chosen, but that’s about it.

The public has, to a greater extent than I can recall, been focused on this year’s selection of delegates. That may well be due in large part to Trump and his supporters. The public will very likely be no less focused on what those delegates do at the nominating conventions. Assuming that the Publican establishment is aware of that focus and takes it seriously, it may well affect the outcome.

The Feral Federal Government

bugblatter-beast

Our selected, and elected, Congresscriters and Presidents get to shape “our” enormous unelected bureaucracies which usurp the role of Congress in legislating. Then, “our” unelected civil “servants” selflessly undertake the difficult task of interpreting the rules they created as well as those the Congress bothered to enact and the President didn’t veto. As noted at The Federalist,

Administrative agencies are creatures of legislation but directed by the executive branch, which has no constitutional authority to pass laws. Their powers derive from statutes that delegate the quasi-legislative authority to issue binding commands in specified contexts. Administrative agencies generally operate independently from Congress and the courts and possess discretionary rulemaking authority.

. . . .

It will take a new kind of president to roll back the administrative state altogether. State resistance alone is no longer enough. Without any pressure from the executive branch, Congress will remain content to pass off touchy political decisions to administrative agencies, which, unlike politicians, cannot be voted out of power. Congress, in turn, can blame the agencies for any negative political consequences of those choices. [Emphasis added.]

We may never recover the framework of ordered liberty that the Founding generation celebrated and enjoyed. But for the sake of our future, and to secure the hope of freedom for our sons and daughters, our grandchildren and their children, we must expose and undo the regulatory regime of administrative agencies. It’s our duty to do so. [Emphasis added.]

In far too many ways, “our” Feral Federal Government resembles that of the European Union. The de facto seat of the EU is in Brussels, Belgium, where hordes of unelected bureaucrats dictate to the member states and their citizens. The seat of “our” Federal Government is in Washington, D.C., where hordes of unelected bureaucrats dictate to the States and to the “folks” who live there. According to Pat Condell, the EU is on the verge of collapse. Will that also be the fate of “our” own little EU? And of the political parties which empower it?

Conclusions

A more efficient and less costly Federal Government would be nice. A smaller, more efficient and less costly Federal Government, much of the power of which has been returned to the States, will be much better. Perhaps the return of significant powers to the States will even awaken some of the more somnolent States and their citizens. For the most part, people in States far removed from Washinton pay little attention to Federal actions until they have significant direct impact on them. Decisions made locally are more likely to have direct local impacts and to attract higher levels of local interest. “Mere” local citizens seem likely to demand voices in what is to be done and how.

Which of the still viable candidates for President is likely to give us the type of Federal Government I envision? Hillary Clinton and her supporters? They like their party and the Federal Government as they are. Trump and his supporters have done much to diminish the power of the Publican Party establishment. They have broken some stuff that needed to be broken and are rebuilding the system on a more populist foundation. As I wrote last September, To bring America back we need to break some stuff. Perhaps they can begin to break “our” bloated Nanny State and recast it in ways comparable to what they have done to the Publican establishment. Doing so could and should put power back where it belongs, in the hands of the States and of the people.

Posted in 2016 elections, Congress, Conservatives, Democracy, Democrats, Donald Trump, European Union, Federal Agencies, Freedom, GOP rebrands, Hillary Clinton, Leftists, Limitation on Authority, Nanny state, Politics, Populism, Presidential elections, Republican establishment, Republicans, States' Rights, Ted Cruz | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Islam is Winning and Western Civilization is losing — Part III, Europe and Britain


Islamization kills entire civilizations and Islam-induced rigor mortis has stricken much of Europe. Anti-blasphemy, anti-islamophobia and inferior status of women teachings, explicit or inherent in Sharia law, are being enforced. This already very long post does not deal with Islamic terrorism, a related but different topic.

Germany – This Year

germany-cologne-train-station-1000-arab-mobs-molest-rape-sexual-assault-women-illustration1“If a woman gets raped walking in public alone, then she, herself, is at fault. She is only seducing men by her presence. She should have stayed home like a Muslim woman.” – Dr. Abd Al-Aziz Fawzan Al-Fawzan, Professor of Islamic Law, Saudi Arabia. Source: Front Page Magazine, The Woman Hunt in Germany.

____________________________________

March 5th article published by The Gatestone Institute commented on Germany’s worsening rape crisis.

A mob of asylum seekers from Afghanistan assaulted three teenage girls at a shopping center in the northern German city of Kiel. The attack — which occurred over two-hours on the evening of February 25, and mirrored the mass assaults of German women in Cologne on New Year’s Eve — shows, once again, that public spaces in Germany are becoming increasingly perilous for women and children.

Police reports show that sexual violence in Germany has skyrocketed since Chancellor Angela Merkel allowed more than one million mostly male migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East into the country. But the crimes are being played down by German authorities, apparently to avoid fueling anti-immigration sentiments. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

Reliable statistics on sexual crimes committed by migrants are notoriously elusive. German authorities have repeatedly been accused of underreporting the true scale of the crime problem in the country. For example, up to 90% of the sex crimes committed in Germany in 2014 do not appear in the official statistics, according to André Schulz, the head of the Association of Criminal Police (Bund Deutscher Kriminalbeamter, BDK).

On February 25, the newspaper, Die Welt, reported that authorities in the German state of Hesse were suppressing information about migrant-related crimes, ostensibly due to a “lack of public interest.” [Emphasis added.]

On January 24, Die Welt reported that the suppression of data about migrant criminality is a “Germany-wide phenomenon.” According to Rainer Wendt, the head of the German police union (Deutschen Polizeigewerkschaft, DPolG), “Every police officer knows he has to meet a particular political expectation. It is better to keep quiet [about migrant crime] because you cannot go wrong.” [Emphasis added]

On January 22, the newsmagazine Focus reported that the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency (Antidiskriminierungsstelle des Bundes, ADS) put pressure on police in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) to remove a reference to “North African criminal groups” in a press release. According to Focus, the ADS wrote: “There is a danger that people from these countries are placed under a general suspicion. We encourage you to delete the reference to the North African origin from the press release.” NRW Police later removed the offending words because “it could not be excluded that our formulation in the press release could be misunderstood as a discriminatory statement.” Interestingly, the original article by Focus has since been removed from the magazine’s webpage.

Some German commentators are downplaying or rationalizing the growing sexual violence against women and children. According to Jakob Augstein, an influential columnist for the newsmagazine Der Spiegel, Germans worried about migrant crimes are presumably motivated by deep-seated racism. [Emphasis added.]

Here’s a lengthy appendix from the same Gatestone article summarizing migrant rapes and other sexual assaults during January and February of this year. Unfortunately, it’s very long. On many days, there were multiple incidents.

Sexual Assaults and Rapes by Migrants in Germany, January-February 2016.

Gatestone Institute first reported about Germany’s migrant rape epidemic in September 2015. The problem has now spread to cities and towns in all 16 of Germany’s federal states. Following are a few cases from just the first two months of 2016:

January 1. More than a thousand migrants sexually assaulted hundreds of German women in the cities of Cologne, Hamburg and Stuttgart.

January 4. A group of migrant youths sexually assaulted a handicapped girl in Bielefeld.

January 5. An Afghan migrant attempted to rape a 15-year-old girl in Burghausen.

January 7. A 36-year-old asylum seeker was arrested for raping a 16-year-old boy inside the city hall of Wolfsburg. A “southerner” (südländisch, arabisch)  sexually assaulted a 13-year-old girl near a train station in Ellwangen.

January 8. A 17-year-old Syrian migrant exposed himself to women at a swimming pool in St. Ingbert.

January 9. A 48-year-old woman was raped by three migrants in Dresden. The perpetrators have not been arrested. Also on January 9, a 45-year-old woman was sexually assaulted by an “Arab-speaking” man in Gleidingen, a town near Hanover. A group of five North Africans (Algerians, Moroccans)sexually assaulted five women in Oldenburg. Two North African migrants (Libya, Tunisia) sexually assaulted a 31-year-old woman at the main train station in Leipzig. A migrant attempted to rape a 46-year-old woman in Saarbrücken-Altenkessel.

January 10. A group of “southerners” (südländisches Aussehen) sexually assaulted three girls at a public swimming pool in Ansbach. A 21-year-old West African was arrested for raping a 15-year-old girl at a train station in Wuppertal. A 36-year-old Syrian migrant sexually assaulted a 20-year-old woman in Bornhöved. The woman was showing the man an apartment that had been advertised for rent.

January 11. A 35-year-old migrant from Pakistan sexually assaulted a three-year-old girl at a refugee shelter in Kamen. Eight migrants attempted to rape a woman at a grocery store in Ampfing. She defended herself by using pepper spray. A 20-year-old Moroccan assaulted a 24-year-old woman in Frankenberg.

January 12. A “southerner” (südländisch aussehenden) raped a 16-year-old girl in Wuppertal. Two “Arabic speaking” men assaulted a 37-year-old woman in Fröndenberg.

January 13. Four migrants (südländisch aussehen) attempted to rape a 13-year-old girl in Gelsenkirchen. Three migrants sexually assaulted a 31-year-old woman in Oldenburg. A migrant attempted to rape a woman at a train station in Altötting. She defended herself by using pepper spray. Three “southerners” (südländischer oder arabischer Herkunft) assaulted a woman in Bad Münstereifel.

January 14. Three migrants (südländische Hautfarbe) sexually assaulted a 47-year-old woman in the Bavarian town of Dingolfing. Three “southerners” (Südländer) assaulted a 22-year-old women on a train in Bremerhaven.

January 15. A 36-year-old migrant sexually assaulted an eight-year-old girl at a public park in Hilden near Solingen. A 31-year-old migrant from Tunisia was arrested for attempting to rape a 30-year-old woman in Chemnitz. A 31-year-old migrant from Morocco appeared in court for raping a 31-year-old woman in Dresden. A migrant sexually assaulted a 42-year-old woman inMainz. A migrant (dunkleren Teint) sexually assaulted a 32-year-old woman in Münchfeld. An African migrant sexually assaulted a 55-year-old woman in Mannheim.

Also on January 15, all male migrants over the age of 18 were banned from a public swimming pool in Bornheim, near Bonn, after assaults against female patrons at the facility. The measure was branded as racist by German media outlets.

January 16. A migrant from Syria sexually assaulted a 12-year-old girl inMudersbach. A 36-year-old migrant sexually assaulted an eight-year-old girl in Mettmann. A 36-year-old migrant assaulted an 8-year-old girl in Hilden. A 19-year-old migrant from Afghanistan sexually assaulted four girls between the ages of 11 and 13 at an indoor swimming pool in Dresden. The migrant was arrested but then released. A 25-year-old Moroccan migrant assaulted two woman at a grocery store in Zeithain.

January 17. Three “southerners” (Südländer) attempted to rape a young woman in Kiel. Two migrants (19 and 38 years old) sexually assaulted a 21-year-old woman at a restaurant in the main train station in Nuremberg. A 19-year-old Afghan migrant assaulted four girls (aged 11 to 13) at a public swimming pool in Dresden. Migrants invaded female changing rooms at a swimming pool in Burghausen. Two “southerners” (dunklen/südländischen Typ) attempted to rape a 42-year-old woman at a pharmacy in Altötting.

January 18. A 43-year-old Syrian migrant assaulted a 63-year-old woman inWetzlar. Police say the man also assaulted two other women (aged 62 and 74) in Wetzlar.

January 19. A 17-year-old Eritrean migrant attempted to rape an 18-year-old woman in a parking garage in Bad Oldesloe. After police intervened, the man head-butted an officer, who was hospitalized.

January 20. Migrants invaded female showers and changing rooms at two public swimming pools in Leipzig.

January 21. A “black skinned” (schwarz glänzende Hautfarbe) man attempted to rape a 13-year-old girl in Langenfeld. Two migrants assaulted an 18-year-old woman in Dingolfing.

January 22. A migrant (südländisches Äußeres) attempted to rape a 16-year-old girl in Feuerbach district of Stuttgart, and in downtown Stuttgart, four “Arabic looking” (arabisches Aussehen) men sexually assaulted a 23-year-old woman. Migrants harassed women at public swimming pools in Zwickau.

January 23. Migrants sexually assaulted two 11-year-old girls at a public swimming pool inWilhelmshaven. Two asylum seekers from Afghanistanassaulted two 17-year-old women at a public swimming pool in Straubing. Three 16-year-old migrants from Afghanistan and Syria assaulted two 13-year-old girls at a public swimming pool in Hachenburg.

Also on January 23, a 35-year-old migrant sexually assaulted a woman in a restroom on a train inDüsseldorf. A 22-year-old Syrian migrant exposed himself on a train in Hanover. An 18-year-old Syrian asylum seeker raped a 17-year-old woman in Straubing. Two unidentified men sexually assaulted an 18-year-old woman in Wiesbaden.

January 24. Two men speaking “broken German” attempted to rape a 25-year-old woman in Lehrte as she was walking home from the train station. The men pulled a knife on the woman and ordered her to “spread your legs.”

January 25. A 30-year-old migrant from “North Africa” (nordafrikanischem Erscheinungsbildexposed himself to a 19-year-old woman on a public bus inMarburg, and then to passersby at the main train station.

January 26. A 35-year-old migrant attempted to rape a young girl in Bochum. Two female passersby intervened and called police.

January 27. Two “southerners” (dunklem Teint) sexually assaulted a 15-year-old girl at a bus stop in Überlingen. A 21-year-old asylum seeker assaulted an 18-year-old woman in a female changing room at a fitness studio in Lahr.

January 28. A migrant from Sudan sexually assaulted a female police officer in Hanover as she was attempting to arrest him for theft. Two “underage refugees” (minderjährige Flüchtlingesexually assaulted a 12-year-old girl at a shelter for children in Düsseldorf. It later emerged that one of the perpetrators was a 22-year-old migrant from Iran who claimed he was 16 years old to gain access to the shelter. A 17-year-old Afghan migrant assaulted a 14-year-old girl in Frankenberg. A “southerner” (Südländer) sexually assaulted an 18-year-old woman in Backnang.

January 31. A 30-year-old German, originally from Turkmenistan, raped a seven-year-old girl in Kiel. The man kidnapped the girl from a school playground at 11 AM, took her to his apartment and, after abusing her, set her free. It later emerged that the man had been accused of sexually assaulting a five-year-old girl at another kindergarten in Kiel on January 18, but due to insufficient evidence, the public prosecutors failed to pursue the case.

Also on January 31, four unidentified migrants (ausländischem Aussehen)sexually assaulted a 17-year-old woman in Vilshofen. An unidentified “dark skinned” (dunkelhäutig) man assaulted a woman in Villingen. Two North African migrants sexually assaulted two 15-year-old girls inSalzgitter.

February 1. A 40-year-old asylum seeker from Syria kissed a 7-year-old boy at a bus stop in Gaildorf.

February 2. Two “dark skinned” (dunklere Gesichtsfarbe) men assaulted a 31-year-old woman, who was nine months pregnant, in the parking lot of a supermarket in Schweinfurt. A 26-year-old migrant using several different identities assaulted three women on a train in Berlin. Two “dark skinned” (dunklem Hauttyp) men assaulted a 14-year-old girl on a school bus in Eslohe.

February 3. Three Afghan migrants sexually assaulted two 14-year-old girls from France at a public swimming pool in Munich. A 16-year-old migrantassaulted a 16-year-old girl at a swimming pool in Heidenheim. An 18-year-old Libyan migrant attempted to rape a 25-year-old woman in Leipzig. A “southern looking man” (südländisch aussehend) exposed himself to passengers on a regional train in Harburg.

February 4. A 29-year-old migrant from Nigeria raped a 21-year-old woman at a carnival celebration in Schloß Holte-Stukenbrock. A 25-year-old asylum seeker from Syria assaulted  two women at the same carnival. More than 20 women were sexually assaulted during carnival celebrations in Cologne. A Syrian migrant sexually assaulted a 49-year-old woman after a carnival in Bad Reichenhall. A 29-year-old migrant assaulted a woman after a carnival in Dinslaken.

Also on February 4, an African migrant (Schwarzafrikaner) assaulted a woman at a supermarket in Lörrach. When police arrived, the man assaulted the officers, who needed backup to subdue him. Police have been unable to determine the man’s identity; he was carrying a fake ID. An Eritrean migrant who assaulted two women in Zeithain was freed after a judge determined the man was drunk when he committed the crimes. A “southerner” (Südländer)assaulted a young woman in Elsfleth.

February 5. Groups of North African migrants assaulted women at carnival celebrations in downtown Cologne. Two migrants sexually assaulted a 16-year-old girl in Straubing. A migrant assaulted a 19-year-old woman in Villingen-Schwenningen. Two “Arabic looking” (arabisch aussehend) men assaulted a 13-year-old girl in Klietz.

February 6. A group of 30 migrants attempted to rape an 18-year-old woman in Mühldorf am Inn, a town in Bavaria. Three Afghan migrants were arrested for sexually assaulting several women at a carnival celebrations on in Laufenburg. A 28-year-old Iraqi migrant assaulted a woman after a carnival in Bocholt. A 24-year-old migrant assaulted two 15-year-old girls at a carnival celebration in Badorf. A 48-year-old Jordanian migrant assaulted a 16-year-old girl at a carnival parade in Frankfurt. “Five or six” migrants assaulted a 25-year-old woman after carnival celebrations in Cologne. Several “foreigners” (Ausländer) assaulted “numerous” women at a carnival in Konstanz.

Also on February 6, a “southerner” (südländisches Aussehen) sexually assaulted a 19-year-old man in Ravensburg. Four “southerners” (südländisches Aussehen) assaulted and robbed two girls (13 and 14 years old) near the main train station in Bochum. A migrant (dunklen Teint) assaulted a woman in Friedrichstadt. Five migrants sexually assaulted an 11-year-old girl at a public swimming pool in Celle.

February 7. A 24-year-old Algerian migrant assaulted two teenage girls at a carnival in Rietberg. Three “Arab looking” (arabisches Aussehen) men sexually assaulted several women at a carnival in Mainz. Two “dark skinned men” (dunkelhäutige Männer) sexually assaulted a 31-year-old woman at a carnival in Gütersloh. Four Afghan migrants were arrested for assaulting two 14-year-old girls at carnival celebrations in Erfurt. Four Afghan migrants sexually assaulted a 17-year-old woman in Heppenheim. Several women were assaulted at a carnival in Hardheim. A 21-year-old Moroccan migrant sexually assaulted a woman at a carnival in Kranenburg. Two “dark skinned” (dunkelhäutig) men assaulted two women at a carnival in Flieden.

Also on February 7, a 17-year-old Afghan migrant sexually assaulted a 12-year-old girl at a public swimming pool in Landshut. A 16-year-old migrant from Afghanistan sexually assaulted several women at Schillerplatz, a large public square in downtown Mainz. A “dark skinned” (dunklem Hauttyp) man sexually assaulted a 17-year-old woman in Backnang. Three “southern looking” (südländischem Aussehen) assaulted a woman in Offenburg. A group of “dark skinned” (dunklen Teint) migrants sexually assaulted a 16-year-old girl in Ochtrup.

Also on February 7, a “dark skinned” (dunkelhäutig) man sexually assaulted a 24-year-old woman in Mühldorf. Five migrants assaulted a 15-year-old girl in Bernburg. A “southerner” (südländisches Aussehen) assaulted a 37-year-old woman on a bus in Bochum. Two “southerners” (zwei Südländersexually assaulted an 18-year-old woman on an express train in Stuttgart. A “southerner” (südländisch Aussehen) assaulted a 39-year-old woman near the train station in Dresden. A migrant assaulted a 46-year-old woman inEppelheim.

February 8. A 35-year-old migrant sexually assaulted a 15-year-old girl at a carnival in Siegburg. Two Moroccans assaulted a 36-year-old woman at a carnival in Brilon. Three migrants assaulted a 49-year-old woman in Andechs.

February 9. North African migrants assaulted a 19-year-old woman during carnival revelry in Opladen, a district of Leverkusen. Several “southerners” (Südländer) assaulted a 23-year-old woman in a supermarket parking lot in Göttingen. Four migrants sexually assaulted three 13-year-old girls at a public swimming pool in Borghorst.

February 11. A 36-year-old asylum seeker raped a 14-year-old girl in Braunschweig.

February 12. A “dark skinned” (dunkle Teint) sexually assaulted a boy at a swimming pool in Nordenham. A migrant assaulted a boy at a swimming pool in Nordenham. Three “dark skinned” (dunkle Hautfarbe) men assaulted a 16-year-old girl in Füssen.

February 13. Several migrants assaulted three girls (aged between 10 and 11) at a swimming pool in Norden. A migrant assaulted a 49-year-old woman in a bakery in Gütersloh.

February 14. Two migrants from Iran and Syria assaulted two girls (aged 10 and 11) at a public swimming pool in Dresden. Four migrants assaulted a 19-year-old woman in Duisburg. Migrants assaulted several women at a discotheque in Mengeringhausen.

February 15. A 17-year-old North African assaulted several women at the main train station in Bremen. A 23-year-old Algerian migrant assaulted a 14-year-old girl on metro train in Frankfurt. Four “dark skinned” (Dunkelhäutige) men assaulted a 35-year-old woman in Künzelsau.

February 16. An “Arabic looking” man assaulted a 14-year-old girl on a bus in Dörzbach.

February 17. A man with a “dark complexion” (dunklem Hautteint) exposed himself to passersby in the Biebrich district of Wiesbaden. A “14 or 15-year-old” boy with “dark skin” (dunkler Teintexposed himself to several women at a traffic light in Hörstel. Two “southerners” (südländischem Aussehen) assaulted a 25-year-old woman in Dresden.

February 18. Three “southern looking” (südländische Erscheinung) men attempted to rape a woman in Uelzen. At least one of the men was attacked by the woman’s Rottweiler.

February 20. A 34-year-old Iraqi asylum seeker assaulted two girls, aged 13 and 14, at a supermarket in Rotenburg. Two “dark skinned” (dunklen Teint) men speaking broken German raped a 49-year-old woman near a cemetery in Biberach. A 51-year-old Bosnian migrant was arrested for repeatedly raping a 17-year-old woman in the Feuerbach district of Stuttgart. Two “dark brown skinned” males sexually assaulted a 19-year-old woman in Trier. A 28-year-old Afghan migrant attempted to rape a woman in Blankenburg. A “dark skinned” (dunklen Teint) man sexually assaulted a 23-year-old man in Greven.

February 21. Seven migrants from Afghanistan and Iran invaded female changing rooms at a public swimming pool in Aurich. A 35-year-old Syrian migrant assaulted a 14-year-old girl at a pool in Eckernförde. An unidentified migrant raped a 21-year-old woman at the train station in Bad Schwartau. A 44-year-old migrant sexually assaulted a 29-year-old female volunteer at a refugee shelter in Großenlüder. A “southerner” (südländisches Aussehen) assaulted a 14-year-girl on a train in Neubrandenburg. Several days later, the same girl was attacked by the same suspect at a playground in the city.

February 22. A man “speaking German with a foreign accent” sexually assaulted a 20-year-old woman in Asperg. A “southerner” (südländischer Typ) assaulted a 16-year-old girl in Feldkirchen. Two “Turkish or Arab” man attempted to rape a 15-year-old girl in Brandenburg.

February 23. A 16-year-old migrant who raped two boys (9 and 11 years of age) in the town of Glöwen was released from jail. A judge ruled that because the suspect lives with his parents and has no money, he does not pose a flight risk. A 34-year-old Algerian migrant assaulted two women (17 and 22 years of age) at a subway station in Berlin. A migrant touched himself in front of a 19-year-old woman on a public bus in Chemnitz. A migrant touched himself in front of a 21-year-old woman on a subway train in Chemnitz.

February 24. A 31-year-old Nigerian asylum seeker sexually assaulted a 21-year-old woman in a church in Weilheim. Police say the man previously assaulted another woman in the same church. He also assaulted two women in the town hall and another woman at a nursing home. A “southerner” (südländischem Äußeren) assaulted an 18-year-old woman in Kassel.

February 25. A dark skinned (südländische Hautfarbe) man assaulted two girls (13 and 15 years of age) on a city bus in the Mockau-Nord district of Leipzig. An “African” (afrikanischen Typ) man assaulted a 48-year-old woman on a tram in Leipzig.

February 26. Two Afghan migrants were accused of raping a 24-year-old woman in Magdeburg. A 29-year-old man was arrested for assaulting several women at the train station in Mülheim an der Ruhr. A 20-year-old asylum seeker assaulted a 20-year-old woman in Landau.

February 28. Two Afghan migrants (aged 14 and 34) raped two girls (aged 14 and 18) at a public swimming pool in Norderstedt. Two Afghan migrants sexually assaulted a 19-year-old woman in Mannheim. A “southerner” (südländischer Typ) assaulted a 46-year-old woman in front of the city hall in Schwarzenbach. A 19-year-old Algerian migrant assaulted a 21-year-old woman in Hamm

Germany’s Islamic hordes are not shy. Here’s a video of Turkish Muslims in Germany shouting that they will conquer Germany. Perhaps they have already.

And another:

However, according to German authorities, the problem is Islamophobia and a German right wing party is under fire for “riding a wave of Islamophobia.”

The anti-immigrant AfD made strong gains in three regional elections last month, profiting from public fears over an influx of more than one million migrants and refugees who arrived last year. [Emphasis added.]

Another AfD deputy leader, Alexander Gauland, has warned of an “Islamisation of Germany” and said that “Islam is not a religion like Catholic or Protestant Christianity but intellectually always associated with the takeover of the state”.

The secretary general of the Council of Europe, Thorbjorn Jagland, warned that such statements are “contrary to European values”.

“It is right and necessary to have a debate about important issues like integration and education, but to depict Islam as a threat to our society is wrong and hurtful to millions of European Muslims,” he said in a statement. [Emphasis added.]

Shut up, he explained.

“We need to strengthen the respect for common values in Europe, not to create new divisions in society.”

Merkel’s top spokesman Steffen Seibert reiterated Monday the government’s often-stated position that “Islam is now, without doubt, a part of Germany”.

Germany is home to four million Muslims, and many of the country’s most recent arrivals adhere to the faith. [Emphasis added.]

All is well, however, because Obama recently declared that Frau Merkel is on the right side of history.

In a cold world, President Barack Obama has found some warmth in Germany.

For the famously reserved commander in chief, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has become his closest global partner, an alliance-turned-friendship forged by mutual political interests and parallel personalities.
Obama arrived in Hanover, Germany, on Sunday to lend Merkel his backing as she faces political blowback over her stance on refugees fleeing war in Syria, a position Obama praised as a matter of moral fortitude.
She’s on the right side of history on this,” Obama said alongside his German counterpart Sunday, praising Merkel for confronting some “very tough politics” in opening her country’s borders to nearly a million migrants last year. [Emphasis added.]

 

Sweeden – The Rape Capitol of the World

Finally, Swedish women are being warned not to go out alone.

Officers first advised women not to walk alone at night after a rash of reports of violence against women by migrants.

“Now the police are going out and warning women against travelling alone in the city [altogether]. We have seen a worrying trend,” said regional police chief Stephen Jerand. “This is serious, we care about the protection of women and that is why we are going out and talking about this.”

Prior to the warning, women in Östersund, a picturesque, lakeside town in central Sweden, were subjected to six (recorded) attacks in the two weeks following Feb. 20. All the attacks were perpetrated by gangs of foreign men, ranging from violent assaults while attempting to rape women on the city’s streets to a groping attack of a group of 10-year old girls waiting at a bus stop.

Sweden took in 163,000 migrants last year alone, the highest percentage of migrants per capital than any other European country. The country, which offers one of the best packages of benefits to the newcomers, just recently imposed regulations to limit the number of immigrants pouring through their borders. [Emphasis added.]

Britain

According to an article published by The Gatestone Institute on April 17th, a

615-page survey found that more than 100,000 British Muslims sympathize with suicide bombers and people who commit other terrorist acts. Moreover, only one in three British Muslims (34%) would contact the police if they believed that somebody close to them had become involved with jihadists.

In addition, 23% of British Muslims said Islamic Sharia law should replace British law in areas with large Muslim populations.

On social issues, 52% of the Muslims surveyed said they believe homosexuality should be illegal, compared to 22% of non-Muslim Britons. Nearly half believe it is unacceptable for a gay or lesbian to teach their children. At the same time, almost a third (31%) of British Muslims think polygamy should be legalized. Among 18-to-24-year-olds, 35% think it is acceptable to have more than one wife.

Thirty-nine percent of Muslims surveyed believe women should always obey their husbands, compared to 5% for non-Muslims. One in three British Muslims refuse completely to condemn the stoning of women accused of adultery.

The poll also found that a fifth of British Muslims have not entered the home of a non-Muslim in the past year.

Of the British Muslims surveyed, 35% believe Jewish people have too much power in the UK, compared to 8% of non-Muslims.

In an essay for the Sunday Times, Trevor Phillips, the host of the documentary and a former head of Britain’s Equality and Human Rights Commission, warned of a growing “chasm” between Muslims and non-Muslims in Britain that “isn’t going to disappear any time soon.”

Phillips wrote that the poll reveals “the unacknowledged creation of a nation within the nation, with its own geography, its own values and its own very separate future.” He added: “I thought Europe’s Muslims would gradually blend into the landscape. I should have known better.”

Phillips was referring to his rather ignominious role in commissioning the 1997 report, “Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All.” Also known as the Runnymede Report, the document popularized the term “Islamophobia” in Britain and had a singular role in silencing criticism of mass immigration from the Muslim world. Twenty years later, Phillips now concedes that he has had a change of heart.

Formerly Great Britain, as a member of the European Union, has little choice as to whether or how many Muslim immigrants to accept. On April 22, Obama advised Britain to remain in the European Union. He said,

We just discussed, for example, the refugee and the migration crisis.  And I’ve told my team — which is sitting right here, so they’ll vouch for me — that we consider it a major national security issue that you have uncontrolled migration into Europe — not because these folks are coming to the United States, but because if it destabilizes Europe, our largest trading bloc — trading partner — it’s going to be bad for our economy.  If you start seeing divisions in Europe, that weakens NATO.  That will have an impact on our collective security. [Emphasis added.]

He did not comment on the extent to which migration to Europe is uncontrolled.

Now, if, in fact, I want somebody who’s smart and common sense, and tough, and is thinking, as I do, in the conversations about how migration is going to be handled, somebody who also has a sense of compassion, and recognizes that immigration can enhance, when done properly, the assets of a country, and not just diminish them, I want David Cameron in the conversation. [Emphasis added.]

Obama offered no insights as to when or how the EU might get around to dealing with immigration “properly” and hence enhance the assets of member nations. The situation continues to worsen.

Obama’s hypocrisy has been noted. Back before the nuke “deal” with Iran was made, Obama criticized Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu for offering his views on the proposed “deal” to the Congress at the invitation of House Speaker Boehner.

[T]he British are expected to decide via referendum whether or not to remain a part of the European Union. During his recent visit to England, Obama spoke out strongly against Britain’s potential separation from the EU. This was a crude and disproportionate effort to meddle in another state’s affairs — an expression of his desire to evade blame for the collapse of the European Union. In his mind, British citizens are expected to forgo their opinions and best interests in favor of his legacy.

It is therefore unclear why Obama unleashed his fury at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when the latter made tireless efforts to convince Congress and the American public not be deceived by the dangerous nuclear deal. How much hypocrisy does it take to allow yourself to do things that you reprimand others for doing? Immanuel Kant saw this kind of behavior as a basic moral failure. Luckily for Britain’s citizens, Obama cannot veto their decision.

Conclusions

The Islamisation of Europe is bad for its citizens, as many of them have recognized to the displeasure of its “mainstream” politicians. Those who opposed Islamisation are disparaged as “Islamophobic.”

Despite the continuing and increasing although mainly illegal influx of immigrants, America has thus far not lost most of her freedoms. However, they have already been endangered and degraded by Obama’s persistent catering to Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and it many Islamist affiliates.

Now, the United Nations is looking for new and clever ways to have more “Syrian refugees” enter America. I put “Syrian refugees” in quotes because there is no way rigorously to determine whether they are from Syria or elsewhere.

These pathways can take many forms: not only resettlement, but also more flexible mechanisms for family reunification, including extended family members, labour mobility schemes, student visa and scholarships, as well as visa for medical reasons. Resettlement needs vastly outstrip the places that have been made available so far… But humanitarian and student visa, job permits and family reunification would represent safe avenues of admission for many other refugees as well. [Emphasis added.]

Please see also, Islam is Winning and Western Civilization is losing – Parts I and II, America and Israel, which deals with Obama’s CAIR-approved Countering Violent Extremism program of rejecting the thesis that there is a nexus between “violent extremism” and Islam.

Here’s a link to an article about what Muslims are being taught in many private Islamic schools in America. According to their text books, there is no Israel, only Palestine. Christians are of the very lowest possible status and are forbidden from entering Heaven. What would Obama say if Christian and Jews were provided comparable education about Muslims?

Are Obama and the European nations which have succumbed to Islamisation following Andrew Klavan’s suggestions in this video that Muslims be treated as sub-humans with no moral agency? It seems that they are, so why not acknowledge it?

 

 

 

Posted in Antisemitism, Britain, CAIR, Education, Foreign policy, free speech, Freedom of religion, Human rights, Islam and women, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamists, Islamophobia, Israel, Multicuralism, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama and Islam, Obama's America, Palestine, Sharia law | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Islam is Winning and Western Civilization is losing – Parts I and II, America and Israel


CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist organizations are winning. Islamic terror in America, Europe and Israel has killed a thousand or so people. That’s a lot, but Islamization kills entire civilizations; with the death of our civilization, more deaths than Islamic terrorism has brought can be expected.

Should we give up and voluntarily commit civilizational suicide? Much of Europe has already done so and that’s what Obama and His minions are seeking for America. The forces pushing for it are strong and we can react with greater strength only if we have the will. Do we?

Part I – America

a. Muslims already in Obama’s America

Obama Muslim Brotherhood

The video embedded above promotes a new book titled See No Sharia, which deals with the Muslim Brotherhood and related Islamist organizations. The Muslim Brotherhood’s vision for America is laid out in a document put in evidence at the Holy Land Foundation criminal trial of several Islamist Muslim Brotherhood conspirators for funding Hamas, a terrorist organization, in violation of U.S. law.

[w]ritten in 1991 by a top Muslim Brotherhood operative, Mohamed Akram, and entitled “The Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Group in North America,” this internal correspondence was meant for the eyes only of the organization’s leadership in Egypt. So, the document is direct and to the point: It explicitly states that the mission of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America is “destroying Western civilization from within … by [the infidels’] hands and the hands of the believers so that Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” [Emphasis added.]

Following guilty verdicts against indicted conspirators, the Obama administration could (and should) have sought indictments against their multiple unindicted co-conspirators. It chose not to do so, most likely because pursuing the matter further would have been inconsistent with Obama’s world view — which seems to be consistent with that of the Muslim Brotherhood, et al.

See No Sharia, and to some extent the related video, illuminate ways in which Obama’s America has been seduced by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Muslim Brotherhood-related Islamist groups into requiring our law enforcement agencies to reject the notion of Islamist Terrorism and to accept instead that of non-denominational “Violent Extremism.” We are repeatedly told that Violent Extremism has nothing to do with Islam.

Although the connection between the Muslim Brotherhood and Nazism should not be overlooked, it generally is.

It was the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Cairo in 1928, that established Islamic Jihad as a mass movement. The significance of the Muslim Brotherhood to Islamic Fascism is comparable to the significance of the Bolshevik Party to Communism: it was, and it remains to this day, the ideological reference point and the organizational core for all later Islamist groups, including Al Queda and Hamas. [Emphasis added.]

While British colonial policy contributed to the rise of Islamic radicalism, the Brotherhood’s jihad was not directed against the British, but focused almost exclusively on Zionism and the Jews.

Membership in the Brotherhood rose from 800 members in 1936 to over 200,000 in 1938. In those two years the Brotherhood conducted a major campaign in Egypt, and it was against the Jews, not against the British occupiers. This campaign against the Jews, in the late 1930s, which established the Brotherhood as a mass movement of Islamic Jihadists, was set off by a rebellion in Palestine directed against Jewish immigration from Europe and Russia. That campaign was initiated by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini. [Emphasis added.]

Al-Husseini was extremely impressed with Adolf Hitler and his anti-Jewish rhetoric. In 1941 he visited Hitler in Berlin. He was so enthralled with Hitler and the Nazis, and their plans to exterminate the Jews that he decided to remain in Berlin. He lived there from 1941 to 1945, recruiting Muslims in Europe for the Waffen-SS. He was very close to Hitler. Husseini’s best friends were Heinrich Himmler and Adolf Eichmann.

He convinced Hitler that he would be able to persuade his Muslim brothers in the Arab world to carry out the extermination of Jews in the Middle East, just as the Nazis were doing in Europe.

Grand Mufti and Hitler

Back then, Hitler was largely focused on the elimination of Jews. That remains the focus of Hamas, of which the Muslim Brotherhood remains a principal supporter. Might it be due to long-standing Muslim Brotherhood ideas that many blame all of the conflicts in the Middle East on the Jewish “occupation” of Israel? That view is held by Obama and members of His administration. Hence, their persistent efforts to turn parts of Israel over to the “Palestinians,” culminating in a two state solution giving Hamas and the Palestinian Authority enhanced leverage in driving Jews from Israel.

Under pressure from the Obama administration, our law enforcement agencies cooperate with Islamist organizations to implement Sharia principles to fight “Islamophobia” rather than to locate, arrest and prosecute Islamist terrorists and wannabe Islamist terrorists. One possible rationale is that if we are nice, they may reduce their efforts to “radicalize” Muslims and, perhaps, stop some Islamic attacks. Another more likely rationale is that our dear leaders actually believe that Islamophobia (along with the Jewish “occupation” of Israel) is the principal cause of Islamic terrorism and that Sharia compliance (along with the “two state solution” and death of Israel) will solve the problems.

America has no blasphemy laws and should want none. They would violate our First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The Organization for Islamic Cooperation, consisting of fifty-seven Islamic nations, has been pushing the United Nations to impose Sharia law-style laws prohibiting blasphemy. They do not seek such laws for their own nations because they already have them to protect Islam. They seek them for America and the rest of what’s left of Western civilization, but seem to have little or no interest in prohibiting “blasphemy” against Judaism or Christianity.

muhammad-bomb-turban

The cartoon is blasphemous under Sharia law because it depicts Muhammed; some Muslims seek to kill those who produce such material. An “art exhibit” featuring an image of the Virgin Mary in a glass of urine is considered sacrilegious; some Christians seek to have government funding removed.  I am reminded of this rather old Andrew Klavan video:

b. Muslims coming to Obama’s America

As correctly observed in an article titled How Obama’s Refugee Policies Undermine National Security,

The issue of the admission of Syrian refugees into the United States has understandably ignited a firestorm of protest by Americans concerned about their safety and the safety of their families. These Americans are not exhibiting “xenophobia,” the usual claim made by the open borders immigration anarchists. They have simply been paying attention to what James Comey, the Director of the FBI, and Michael Steinbach, the FBI’s Assistant Director of the Counterterrorism Division, have stated when they testified before congressional hearings about the Syrian refugee crisis. They made it clear that these refugees cannot be vetted. There are no reliable databases to check and no capacity to conduct field investigations inside Syria to verify the backgrounds of these aliens. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

I focused on these issues in my October 7, 2015 article for FrontPage Magazine, “Syrian ‘Refugees’ and Immigration Roulette: How the government is recklessly playing with American lives.”

Further reports have provided disturbing information that ISIS operatives have seized blank Syrian passports and other identity documents, along with the printing devices used to prepare passports and other ID, and have sold these documents to reporters in false names. These identity documents are indistinguishable from bona fide documents because they are bona fide documents — except that the photos and biometrics do not relate to the original person but create credible false aliases for anyone willing to pay for them.

Even if we had the documentation referred to above, it would be of little help because due to pressure from Muslim Brotherhood-related groups, we are not allowed to “profile” Muslims. As noted here,

obeisance to politically correct proscriptions against “profiling” is just one of the myriad ways in which we tell the jihadist enemy we really aren’t serious about the latest battle in the 14-century-long war of Islam against the infidel West.

. . . .

This lack of seriousness is endemic in this administration. Refusing to call ISIS “Islamic,” even going so far as to censor comments by French president François Hollande that used the word, bespeaks a dangerous frivolity. . . .

Our problem, however, goes beyond the politicians. Too many of us have failed to understand that this war did not begin on 9/11. It did not begin when al Qaeda declared war on us in the 90s and attacked our embassies and naval vessels. It did not begin in 1979, when our alleged neo-colonialist depredations supposedly sparked the Iranian revolution and created today’s Islamic (N.B., Mr. President) Republic of Iran, the world’s premier state sponsor of terrorism. It did not begin in 1948, when five Arab nations, all but one members of the U.N., violated Resolution 191 and attacked Israel. It did not begin when after World War I the victorious Entente powers exercised mandatory powers, granted by the League of Nations and codified in international treaties, over the territory of the Ottoman Empire that had sided with the Central Powers.

All these acts of aggression were merely the latest in a war begun in the 7th century when Islam attacked the eastern Roman Empire and began its serial dismemberment of the heart of Christendom, the old word for the West. For a thousand years the armies of Allah successfully invaded, conquered, occupied, enslaved, and raided the West, in accordance with its doctrine of jihad in the service of Muslim domination, and in homage to Mohammed’s injunction, “I was told to fight all men until they say there is no god but Allah.” This record of success began to end in the 17th century with the rise of the modern West and its technological, economic, and political advantages. [Emphasis added.]

But the war didn’t end with that Muslim retreat, even after what bin Laden called the “catastrophe” –– the demise of the Ottoman Caliphate, and the division of its territory into Western-style nation-states. The West won that battle, but it did not win the war. One reason is the Muslim nations of the Middle East never suffered the wages of their aggression. They sided with the Central Powers in World War I. They sat out World War II––apart from the many thousands who fought on the side of the Nazis––and received fugitive Nazis as guests after the war. Their serial aggression and terror against Israel has never been repaid with bombed-out capitals or punitive postwar reprisals. Their governments have never been punished for funding and proliferating mosques and madrassas teaching hatred of the infidel and terrorist violence in the service of jihad. [Emphasis added.]

Instead of paying the price of aggression, partly because of the Cold War, more recently because of Western failure of nerve and civilizational exhaustion, Muslims have been the beneficiaries of billions in Western aid, Western arms, Western defense against enemies, Western lax immigration policies, Western appeasement, and Western suicidal ideas like cultural and moral relativism. In short, Muslims have never accepted their defeats, and have never experienced the humiliating cost of their aggression, because the modern West has never forced them to pay for it. [Emphasis added.]

Thus they look at our unserious, godless culture of consumption and frivolity, of self-loathing and guilt, and these serious believers are confident that 350 years of defeat in battle have not led to defeat in the long war. And so the war goes on. The frivolous Western dogs bark, but Allah’s caravan moves on. [Emphasis added.]

Part II — Israel

Israel is constantly attacked by various UN organizations, most recently UNESCO, which has named the Western Wall after Muhammed’s flying horse, Barack Buraq.

There is a concerted effort among “Palestinians” and their supporters to erase all evidence of the historical connection of Jews to Israel. The UN, controlled by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, is a willing partner in these efforts. Besides being motivated by Islamic Jew-hatred, this endeavor is in line with the Islamic supremacist tendency to appropriate the holy places and sacred figures of other religions.

Buraq is claimed to have transported Muhammed from Mecca to Jerusalem, hence giving Palestinians valid claim to all of Israel. Here’s one depiction of Buraq. Obviously, there are no photographs of Muhammed actually riding him, because images of Muhammed are prohibited. Look closely at the picture. Where did the horse’s head come from?

Buraq

Here’s an explanation of the Muslim nexus with the Western Wall:

Various scholars and writers, such as Ibn al-Faqih, Ibn Abd Rabbih, and Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulsi, have suggested places where Buraq was tethered, mostly locations near the southwest corner of the Haram.[7] However, for several centuries the preferred location has been the al-Buraq mosque, just inside the wall at the south end of the Western Wall plaza.[7] The mosque sits above an ancient passageway that once came out through the long-sealed Barclay’s Gate whose huge lintel remains visible below the Maghrebi gate.[7] Because of the proximity to the Western Wall, the area next to the wall has been associated with Buraq at least since the 19th century.[8]

A New York Times editorial published in October of last year purported to compare the Jewish and Muslim claims to the Temple Mount. An article by Daniel Greenfield at Front Page Magazine posed a few questions for the NUT NYT editorialists.

The Temple Mount is holy to Jews because of the Temples. So the New York Times chose to discuss whether the Temples really existed. It’s holy to Muslims because Mohammed supposedly flew there on a flying horse (with a woman’s head).

. . . .

Let’s interview some of the same scholars and archeologists as to whether the entire Muslim basis for laying claim to the area has any basis in reality. The New York Times discusses the need for “independent scientific verification” of the Temples. How about “independent scientific verification” of this?

Here are some things for the New York Times to verify…

1. Buraq was a flying horse with a woman’s head. Can we get any verification that such a creature ever existed.

2. Buraq flew from Mecca to Jerusalem and back in one night. “The distance between Mecca and Jerusalem is 755.1 miles. To complete this feat in one night would have meant that Buraq must have been jet propelled in the 7th Century.” Please provide independent scientific verification of the existence of a flying horse with a woman’s head that can travel faster than the speed of sound.

Oddly the New York Times doesn’t appear to be interested in independent scientific verification of Islamic Supremacist myths.

Evidently, UNESCO puts more stock in flying horses than in Jewish claims to the Temple Mount.

In view of the gravity of the Islam vs. Everybody Else situation, I decided to try to inject a bit of humor into only one of the many problems Israel faces with the UN, the OIC, Obama’s America, Europe, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority and others. I had originally intended to write a more comprehensive piece on Islam vs. Israel, and will probably do so after I post Part III of this series dealing with the Islamisation of Europe.

A better and more detailed account of the UNESCO – Temple Mount absurdity is provided here.

Conclusions

Obama’s America has the will to “win,” but confuses winning with eradicating Islamophobia and slicing Israel into pieces to give to the “Palestinians” and perhaps Syria, hence bringing “peace” to the Middle East. Under that definition of “winning,” Israel, the only democratic nation and the only solid ally of the United States in the region, will cease to exist; the Islamists will have won.

We need a very different version of “winning,” one under which our constitutional freedoms and our democratic nature will be cherished and protected. Both are inconsistent with Sharia law and are not part of any definition with which Obama would agree.

We can win against Islamist encroachments on our government and in our society only if enough of us recognize the dangers they entail. Then, we will have not only the means to win but the will to do so. A first step will be to bid Obama good riddance and to welcome a successor who recognizes the dangers of Islamism and is prepared — and wants — to move quickly and effectively against it.

Posted in 2016 elections, Allah, Antisemitism, CAIR, Democracy, First Amendment, Foreign policy, free speech, Hamas, Holocaust, Human rights, Islamic Caliphate, Islamic immigration, Islamic Jihad, Islamic State, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamists, Islamophobia, Israel, Middle East, Multicuralism, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama, Obama and Israel, Obama's affinity for Islam, Obama's America, Palestinian Authority, Sharia law, United Nations, Violent extremism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 16 Comments

Navy to Name New Destroyer The USS Alfred C. Sharpton


Thinker of the day

Inspired by the profound wisdom of Nancy Pelosi

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus stated this week that Navy ships no longer need be named after dead old White geezers with medals of honor or politicians who have helped the Navy. Naming them after politicians favored by our dear leader Obama is now Navy policy.

Sharpton may never have won a medal of honor, served in the U.S. Military or helped the Navy. However, he is a fighter for social justice and has destroyed lots of racist stuff. Once the Navy names a destroyer in his honor, he will have much more work to do. Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Min! White Power Gotta GO! Soon, under President Hillary Clinton, Admiral Sharpton will have an entire task force of destroyers with which to fight environmental and other racism. 

Navy Secretary Mabus is breaking new ground, and it’s high time somebody did. He recently stated that

an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer will be named the USS Carl M. Levin. The Michigan Democrat served 31 years in the Senate and chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee from 2007 to 2015.

One congressional staffer noted that Mr. Levin presided over the committee during the Obama administration’s major drawdown of troops and weapons systems. Joint Chiefs of Staff officers testified in recent months that they doubt they can fight one major war on the schedule outlined in the National Military Strategy.

Gutting the racist and Islamophobic U.S. military is good! Devout members of “our” military love killing peaceful Muslims and other people of color at least as much as they enjoy breaking things. As our dear leader Obama has often emphasized, we must negotiate with poor and underprivileged people who try to kill us. We must help them to see how wonderful they already are and how we can help them to become happier and even more wonderful. Use of “our” military only makes them hate us and so is completely out of bounds.

Naming a destroyer after the Reverend Sharpton will promote social justice and put racists in their proper place — under his heel. He is good at destroying America’s racist culture and that includes preventing racist white people from appropriating America’s vast and beautiful Black culture. Here’s a stupid video by a vile White racist pig, Bill Whittle.

Whites have never developed any culture of their own beyond that of enslaving Black people. Despite their White privilege, they have no legal right to appropriate the rich and vibrant culture of Blacks, whom they despise and continue to enslave.

Navy Secretary Mabus is also aligned with own dear leader Obama in recognizing the need to prevent global warming global cooling Climate Change. Children and other adherents to the Religion of Peace won’t harm us; Climate Change will kill us.

The Navy will become the first branch of the military to require big vendors to report their greenhouse gas emissions and to outline what they are doing to lower them in response to global warming.

“We’ve got skin in this game,” Navy Secretary Ray Mabus told a technology conference on government and climate change on Tuesday, noting that the Navy’s fleet is the military’s largest user of fossil fuels.

. . . .

The U.S. military in recent years has called climate change a serious threat to national security. The Pentagon has said climate change is exacerbating everything from droughts to the rise of Islamic terror. [Emphasis added.]

The pentagon appears to have misspoken: there is no such thing as Islamic terror, because Islam is the religion of peace and tolerance. Perhaps the pentagon meant the terror we inflict on innocent Muslims.

The administration routinely repeats that position when discussing the challenge of global warming as the top threat the world faces. GOP presidential candidates often cite the stance to criticize President Obama’s policy priorities. [Emphasis added.]

Hillary Clinton is the only presidential candidate totally opposed to environmental racism. On April 13th, She promised Al Sharpton “a task force” to fight it.

[A]ir pollution from power plants, factories, and refineries contribute to disproportionately high rates of asthma for African-American children. Nearly half of all Latino children live in U.S. counties where smog levels exceed the Environmental Protection Agency’s health standards, the campaign says.

Minority communities will also be disproportionately affected by climate change.

“And the impacts of climate change, from more severe storms to longer heat waves to rising sea levels, will disproportionately affect low-income and minority communities, which suffer the worst losses during extreme weather and have the fewest resources to prepare,” the campaign memo states.

. . . .

If elected president, Clinton says she will establish an Environmental and Climate Justice Task Force on her first day in office. [Emphasis added.]

By giving Admiral Sharpton a massive task force, President Clinton will make him Her principal destroyer of environmental racism. As Queen Hillary’s Monarch of the Sea, Admiral Sharpton will rule the waves as well as did Queen Victoria’s own sea ruler!

Three cheers for our own dear leader Obama, His great Secretary of the Navy, our soon-to-be glorious Monarch of the Sea and our loving next president, Hillary Clinton!

The little children knew years ago and now, after almost eight years under Obama, we must all celebrate their profound wisdom, clarity of thought and maturity by giving dear leader Obama at least another eight years by electing Hillary as our beloved Queen! Long may She reign!

Editor’s note:

Oh well.

 

 

Posted in 2016 elections, Climate change, Democrats, Foreign policy, Global Smarming, Hillary Clinton, Humor, Islamic Jihad, Military effectiveness, Obama, Obama's America, Politics, Progressives, Racism, U.S. Military, U.S. Navy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Signs of an Incipient Islamic Reformation?


Is a meaningful reformation of Islam possible? Probably not soon, but there have been indications that it may eventually come. 

The first video in this article features an attractive Saudi television hostess opining that Islam has everything to do with terrorism and that adherents to the “religion of peace” should be ashamed.

Nadine Al-Budair 1

Please note the absence of traditional Muslim female garb — on a Saudi television program.

Saudi journalist and TV host Nadine Al-Budair recently criticized the “hypocrites” who say that the terrorists “do not represent Islam or the Muslims.” After the abominable Brussels bombings, “it’s time for us to feel shame and to stop acting as if the terrorists are a rarity,” she said, in an address that aired on the Saudi Rotana Khalijiyah TV on April 3. “Why do we shed our own conscience?” she asked. “Don’t these perpetrators emerge from our environment?” [Emphasis added.]

Saudi Rotana Khalijiyah TV  “is primarily owned by the Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal.

Censorship?

In 2014, Reporters Without Borders describes the government as “relentless in its censorship of the Saudi media and the Internet”,[1] and ranked Saudi Arabia 164th out of 180 countries for freedom of the press.[2]

Might recognition of the Islam-terrorism nexus be a step toward the moderation of Islam?Apparently, the censors let Ms. Al-Budair message get through. Why?

Writing in the Kuwaiti daily Al-Rai, Ms. Al-Budair

asks how Muslims would react if western youths acting in the name of Christ blew themselves up in their midst. She also slams Muslim attempts to absolve themselves of guilt by saying that terrorists do not represent Islam, calling such disclaimers “pathetic.” [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

Taking the largest acts of terror from the last couple of decades, Al-Budair . . . wonders what would have happened if they had been perpetrated in the Arab world. Citing terrorist groups like the Islamic states desire to impose 7th century Sharia law, Al-Budair writes,

Imagine a Western youth coming here and carrying out a suicide mission in one of our public squares in the name of the Cross. Imagine that two skyscrapers had collapsed in some Arab capital, and that an extremist Christian group, donning millennium-old garb, had emerged to take responsibility for the event, while stressing its determination to revive Christian teachings or some Christian rulings, according to its understanding, to live like in the time [of Jesus] and his disciples, and to implement certain edicts of Christian scholars.

She asks readers to imagine a world in which Christians call Muslims “infidels” and pray that God will eliminate them all. She continues by conjuring an Arab world that grants foreigners visas, citizenship, jobs, free education, and healthcare, and then asks what would happen if one of those foreigners killed Arabs indiscriminately.

Self-criticism in Arab world

Ms. Al-Budair is not the only Muslim in an Islamic nation calling for recognization of the Islam-terrorism nexus and arguing that change is necessary.

Here are excerpts from Arab media criticising popular views of Islam and terror.

In an article titled “We Have Failed Indeed,” the editor of the London-based Saudi daily Al-Hayat, Ghassan Charbel, attacked the Arabs and Muslims for sowing destruction and fear in the very same European countries that had agreed to take them in after they had fled their failed countries. Charbel argued that the Arabs and Muslims had not managed to build states and citizens that could integrate into the modern world, and that they must recognize their failure and start from scratch. He wrote: “Are we [the Arabs and Muslims] simply part of this world, or are we perhaps an explosive charge implanted in [this world’s] entrails? Are we a normal neighborhood in the global village, or are we maybe a neighborhood of suicide bombers in [that village]? Are these massacres that move [from place to place] aimed at annexing the Arab and Muslim communities in the West to the lexicon of slaughter and suicide? Are we part of the world’s present and future, or are we a dark tempest that seeks to send [the world] back to the caves that it abandoned when it chose the path of progress and human dignity? [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

“This is the truth that can no longer be concealed or condoned. We have failed at building a normal state – a state that lives within its borders. a state of institutions that strives its utmost to obtain progress and development and provide its citizens with work opportunities and involvement, a state that cooperates with its neighbors and the world without being panic-stricken or fettered by spite. We have also failed to build a normal citizen, [one] who belongs to the current stage of development in a rapidly developing world. [Emphasis added.]

Another:

Tareq Masarwa, a writer for the official Jordanian daily Al-Rai, criticized how some Arabs are attempting to justify terrorist attacks by claiming that European countries are racist and marginalize Muslims. He wrote: “… [According to] some analyses [of the Brussels attacks,] the terrorists grew up in the outskirts of European cities and were angry at being marginalized! We hear these same excuses here. However, other analyses responded [to these claims] with a wise comparison: They [the Muslim terrorists in Europe] chose terrorism. Otherwise, why aren’t there millions of [South] American terrorists in Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico, since they too are poor and grew up in the outskirts of big cities?! According to another analysis, Europe does not give immigrants from North Africa, and specifically from Africa itself, the same opportunities that it gives European immigrants. This constitutes a justification of terrorism, since Europe gives the immigrant the opportunity for a free education, and thousands of Jordanians have attended French and German universities for free… and had an easy time becoming citizens of those countries… How are France, Sweden, Germany, and Belgium expected to promote immigrants who are illiterate? And under what social conditions can a 10-person Arab or African family [hope to] exist?! [Emphasis added.]

“It is shameful that we demand that the world treat us justly as we drive away our sons by killing them, imprisoning them, or failing to provide them with proper education, healthcare, and employment, and with a dignified life. The sight of people flocking to Europe’s borders, including Syrians, Iraqis, Kurds, Afghans, and Iranians, is heartbreaking, especially when they are carrying their children or pushing them in front of them – but all we do is curse the Europeans as racists who hate Muslims and foreigners, and consider it our right to murder them in their airports, trains, and theaters. [Emphasis added.]

“Did the Europeans take over our countries? Yes. But they left over 50 years ago, and we now call on them to bring down our tyrants, and accuse them of dragging their feet [on this issue].

“Terrorism is a crime, and justifying it is an even worse crime. What is happening in the cities of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Egypt, and Tunisia is terrorism, and we are responsible for its formation, its arming, and its funding. It is pointless to justify the murder of Europeans and Americans out of a desire to justify our own crimes.”[3] [Emphasis added.]

Another:

Kuwaiti writer and author Khalil ‘Ali Haidar wrote in the Bahraini daily Al-Ayyam that the Muslims are not doing enough against terrorism and are shirking their responsibility for it. He wrote: “What are we doing here in our countries, or in Western countries in Europe and America, while these terrible blows of terrorism land on us and them, one after the other? … In fact, we do not know how to act against these terrorists. Is it sufficient that following each of these terrorist actions, which take place in merciless rapid succession and are all perpetrated by young Muslims… that we say ‘they aren’t Muslims’ and ‘they do not represent true Islam’ and are misguided khawarij[4] and apostates? And will the world be satisfied with [such statements]?

“Is it normal that while terrorism succeeds in recruiting hundreds and even thousands of Muslims, we are satisfied to persuade ourselves that their numbers ‘are still negligible’ compared to the global Muslim population? Must the number of terrorists swell to tens or hundreds of thousands before we realize that a thunderous pounding torrent [is headed] towards us, and that this means that we must stop, convene, and give intellectuals the freedom to examine the reasons [for this] and the freedom to publish the results of their studies? [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

“The religious culture of the Islamic world during this era is afflicted with innumerable ills. We turn the world upside down over various matters, such as an article that offends us, or issues regarding the niqab, Halal meat, Christians using the word Allah – which Muslims in Malaysia, for instance, claim as their exclusive right. [Furthermore,] many leaders of Pakistani and other immigrant [groups] expend all their efforts in the sectarian campaign against the Ahmadi movement, to the point where they have no time to examine this terrorist urge among their young people, including among the educated, engineers and [other] experts. [Emphasis added.]

“Unfortunately, the Muslims do not yet unanimously condemn ISIS. Some Muslims praise them [ISIS members], think the media wrongs them, and join them at the first opportunity, and even carry out the first suicide mission they are offered anywhere in the world!

“One reason for the immaturity of Muslim young people in Britain, France, and the U.S. is that the leadership of the religious institutions, and all religious activity, still remain in the hands of Arab, Pakistani and other activists and leaders who have fled to the West [and continue to] support political Islam parties. These leaders may not [themselves] carry out terrorist attacks, but they also do not truly take a stand against the terrorist religious culture. Moreover, most of their writings, ideas, and strategic positions regarding an Islamic system and the caliphate state share [this religious culture]. [Emphasis added.]

We say that ‘terrorism has no religion and no homeland.’ But we must confront the fact that most terrorist attacks in the Arab and Muslim world itself are not carried out by Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Ahmadis, or Baha’is – but by Muslims and the sons and daughters of Muslims. Some are not satisfied with carrying out their crimes in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, and Tunisia, but carry them out in Western countries. And even if they believe that terrorism in Europe and the U.S. is justified because of [these countries’] ‘colonialist past’ and ‘hostile positions’ against the Arabs and Muslims – of what crimes are the Egyptians, Iraqis, Afghans, and Nigerians guilty? Do those countries also have shameful colonialist pasts?”[5] [Emphasis added.]

Islam in Obama’s America

There are also Muslim and former Muslim critics of Islam and its unfortunate teachings in Obama’s America, but their voices tend to be drowned out by Obama’s CAIR-Hamas-Muslim Brotherhood-linked friends. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Muslim, is perhaps the best known.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

I have written extensively about her and her quest for an Islamic reformation, most recently here. Here is one of the Honor Diaries videos of which she is the executive producer. It deals with the Islamic concept of Honor and how it constrains women.

Here, in contrast, is an “Islam is good the way it is” reaction.

As I noted here,

Along with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Azeezah Kanji — the featured speaker in the above video — has been very active in disparaging Honor Diaries. Like CAIR, she has ties to the Obama White House and was named a “Champion of Change” by the White House in 2011. What changes in Islam does Ms. Kanji champion? None, apparently, of those intrinsic to it.

And here is a video about the White House reaction to the “folks” in the video embedded immediately above.

Last month, Imam Obama visited a Muslim Brotherhood related mosque.

When Barack Obama visited the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamic Society of Baltimore on Wednesday, he said: “The first thing I want to say is two words that Muslim Americans don’t hear often enough: Thank you.”

While Obama has been President, Muslims have murdered non-Muslims, avowedly in the cause of Islam, at Fort Hood, Boston, Chattanooga, and San Bernardino, and attempted to do so in many, many other places. Imagine if armed Baptists screaming “Jesus is Lord” had committed murder, and explained that they were doing so in order to advance Christianity, in four American cities, and had attempted to do so in many others. Imagine that those killers were supporters of a global Christian movement that had repeatedly called for attacks on U.S. civilians and declared its determination to destroy the United States.

Imagine how incongruous it would be in that case for the President of the United States to visit a church and say: “The first thing I want to say is two words that Christian Americans don’t hear often enough: Thank you.” And imagine how unlikely it would be that Barack Obama would ever have done that. [Emphasis added.]

But his visit to the Islamic Society of Baltimore . . . he signaled yet again to the world (and worldwide jihadis) that in the U.S., Muslims are victims, victims of unwarranted concern over jihad terror, and thus that concern is likely to lessen even more, as Obama dismantles still more of our counter-terror apparatus. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

“If we’re serious about freedom of religion — and I’m talking to my fellow Christians who are the majority in this country — we have to understand that an attack on one faith is an attack on all faiths.”

Once again Obama felt free to scold and admonish Christians, but said nothing about Muslims in the U.S. needing to clean house and work for real reform that would mitigate jihad terror. And his premise was false: there is no attempt to restrict Muslims’ freedom of religion. Donald Trump hasn’t called for that; nor has Ben Carson or any serious analyst. But the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) (a representative of which accompanied Obama to the mosque Wednesday) and other Islamic advocacy groups have consistently charged that counter-terror efforts and attempts to restrict the political, supremacist and authoritarian aspects of Sharia that are at variance with Constitutional principles were tantamount to restricting Muslims’ religious freedom. [Emphasis added.]

Now the President of the United States has endorsed their false narrative, which will only further stigmatize initiatives to understand the jihadis’ ideology and counter it effectively. He further criticized those who dare to suggest that Islam might have something to do with Islamic terrorism by criticizing those who say that the U.S. is at war with Islam: “That kind of mind-set helps our enemies,” he intoned. “It helps our enemies recruit. It makes us all less safe.” [Emphasis added.]

In Heretic, Hirsi Ali stated that there is a unique role for the West in the reformation of Islam.

Whenever I make the case for reform in the Muslim world, someone invariably says: “That is not our project— it is for Muslims only. We should stay out of it.” But I am not talking about the kind of military intervention that has got the West into so much trouble over the years. For years, we have spent trillions on waging wars against “terror” and “extremism” that would have been much better spent protecting Muslim dissidents and giving them the necessary platforms and resources to counter that vast network of Islamic centers, madrassas, and mosques which has been largely responsible for spreading the most noxious forms of Islamic fundamentalism. For years, we have treated the people financing that vast network— the Saudis, the Qataris, and the now repentant Emiratis— as our allies. In the midst of all our efforts at policing, surveillance, and even military action, we in the West have not bothered to develop an effective counternarrative because from the outset we have denied that Islamic extremism is in any way related to Islam. We persist in focusing on the violence and not on the ideas that give rise to it. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

Why the Tide Is Turning

Three factors are combining today to enable real religious reform:

• The impact of new information technology in creating an unprecedented communication network across the Muslim world.

• The fundamental inability of Islamists to deliver when they come to power and the impact of Western norms on Muslim immigrants are creating a new and growing constituency for a Muslim Reformation.

• The emergence of a political constituency for religious reform emerging in key Middle Eastern states.

Together, I believe these three things will ultimately turn the tide against the Islamists, whose goal is, after all, a return to the time of the Prophet— a venture as foredoomed to failure as all attempts to reverse the direction of time’s arrow.

. . . .

In November 2014, an Egyptian doctor coined an Arabic hashtag that translates as “why we reject implementing sharia”; it was used five thousand times in the space of twenty-four hours, mostly by Saudis and Egyptians. In language that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago, a young Moroccan named Brother Rachid last year called out President Obama on YouTube for claiming that Islamic State was “not Islamic.”[Emphasis added.]

Here is the referenced video:

Finally, here’s a video of a Hirsi Ali interview shortly after the San Bernardino attack.

Among other key teaching points she elaborated upon in the video is the Islamist concept “don’t ask questions. Don’t ask why Mohamed wants us to do or to refrain from doing certain things. To question is evil. Just obey.” Only when she went to the Netherlands did she encounter the concept of critical thinking. What can we, in the United States, do to promote critical thinking among Muslims? We are doing little, if anything, now. Indeed, Obama’s America discourages it by affiliating with CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood related groups.

Meanwhile, the Islamic University of Minnesota is among the American “academic” institutions promoting age-old, “radical” Islam.

It is run by a man who used a recent sermon to invoke a Hadith commonly espoused by Muslim terrorists to kill Jews for causing “corruption in the land.” Waleed Idris al-Meneesey also has written that Muslims should place sharia law above “man-made” law.

. . . .

The Prophet related that in the Last Days his Umma [people] would fight the Jews, the Muslims East of the Jordan River, and they [the Jews] west of [the Jordan River] … Even trees and stones will say: O Muslim, this is a Jew behind me, kill him, except for Gharqad trees, the trees of the Jews. Because of this they plant many of them…” [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

Al-Meneesy, the IUM’s president and chancellor, also serves as an imam at a Bloomington, Minn. mosque where at least five young men left the United States to fight with terrorist groups al-Shabaab and ISIS.

. . . .

IUM also professes to serve as the official representative of Sunni Islam’s most important institution – Al-Azhar University, which has grown increasingly radical – in the U.S. and Canada. Al-Azhar officials have refused to condemn the Islamic State (ISIS) as apostates and heretics. According to Egypt’s Youm 7, IUM’s curriculum, offered to American students, endorses many practices used by ISIS. These include: “[K]illing a Muslim who does not pray, one who leaves Islam, prisoners and infidels within Islam [those who do not have a clearly specified creed or sect]. [It also allows] gouging their eyes and chopping off their hands and feet, as well as banning the construction of churches and discriminating between Muslims and Ahl al-Kitab [Christians and Jews], and insulting them at times.” [Emphasis added.]

Al-Azhar University was where Obama delivered a major address on the beauties of Islam in 2009. The text of His remarks is at the link.

Conclusions

America should be in a good position to promote an Islamic reformation. Europe has descended deep into the realm of multiculturalism and until she comes to her senses, it won’t happen there. It isn’t happening in Obama’s America due to the reluctance to associate Islam with terrorism and numerous human rights violations. It most likely won’t as long as Imam Obama remains in office. It’s futile to expect or even to hope that it will.

Due to Obama and His people, America is not safe from Islamic terror.

Cox Washington News Bureau reported that there were no fewer than 73 airport workers with possible terror ties, working at airports including Sea-Tac Airport in Seattle, Hartsfield-Jackson Airport in Atlanta, Logan Airport in Boston, Orlando International Airport in Florida, Memphis International Airport in Tennessee, and others.

Fear not!

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson this week set the record straight: “It’s not that they’re suspected terrorists. It’s that they hadn’t been vetted through all available databases. We have since corrected that problem and the cases have been resolved.”

There are just a few little problems:

Presumably Johnson and his team have consulted their extensive database of card-carrying Islamic State members, and have diligently compared it to their list of airport employees, and have removed those who appeared on both lists. The only problem with this scenario, of course, is that there is no such database, or anything comparable to it. There is simply no database that Johnson could consult that would enable the Department of Homeland Security to remove everyone with terror ties from airport jobs. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

[T]he Obama administration is bound as a matter of policy to ignore and deny the terrorists’ motivating ideology – so how can it vet for it? This goes back to October 19, 2011, [when] Farhana Khera of Muslim Advocates, wrote a letter to John Brennan, who was then the Assistant to the President on National Security for Homeland Security and Counter Terrorism. The letter was signed not just by Khera, but by the leaders of virtually all the significant Islamic groups in the United States: 57 Muslim, Arab, and South Asian organizations, many with ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, including the CAIR, ISNA, MAS, the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Islamic Relief USA; and MPAC. [Emphasis added.]

The letter denounced what it characterized as U.S. government agencies’ “use of biased, false and highly offensive training materials about Muslims and Islam,” and emphasized that this was an issue of the utmost importance: “The seriousness of this issue cannot be overstated, and we request that the White House immediately create an interagency task force to address this problem, with a fair and transparent mechanism for input from the Muslim, Arab, and South Asian communities, including civil rights lawyers, religious leaders, and law enforcement experts.”

Mr. Brennan saluted and said “Yes, Maam!”

Brennan assured Khera that all her demands would be met: “Your letter requests that ‘the White House immediately create an interagency task force to address this problem,’ and we agree that this is necessary.” He then detailed other specific actions being undertaken, including “collecting all training materials that contain cultural or religious content, including information related to Islam or Muslims.” In reality this material wouldn’t just be “collected”; it would be purged of anything that Farhana Khera and others like her found offensive—that is, any honest discussion of how Islamic jihadists use Islamic teachings to justify violence. Brennan assured Khera that he saw the problem just as she did, and that remedies were being implemented quickly. . . . [Emphasis added.]

Some Muslims in Arab countries have been candid about the Islam-terror nexus. So have some reformist Muslims and former Muslims in America. Donald Trump also has a realistic perception of the Islam-terror nexus and might provide support for those seeking its reformation. I hope he has a chance to do it.

trump-punch-600-la

 

Posted in 2016 elections, Arab countries, Asylum seekers, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, CAIR, Donald Trump, Education, Europe, free speech, Hate speech, Human rights, Islamic immigration, Islamic State, Islamisation, Islamists, Islamophobia, Multicuralism, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama's affinity for Islam, Obama's America, Political Correctness, Reform Islam, Sharia law, Violent extremism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments