Sunday, April 19, 2015

The bold red line - Maj. Gen. (ret.) Yaakov Amidror

by Maj. Gen. (ret.) Yaakov Amidror

Only a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the Iranian regime could lead anyone to believe any deal will satisfy Tehran's nuclear ambitions • The truth is the U.S. can bring Iran's nuclear program to a halt -- it simply chooses not to do so.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini in Lausanne
Photo credit: AP

Maj. Gen. (ret.) Yaakov Amidror


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

I Sing of Arms and Iran - Michael Curtis

by Michael Curtis

This arms sale, in addition to being a very public projection of Russian power and disregard for the views of the United States administration, is also likely to be the forerunner of business deals, including arms supplies, between other countries and Iran. 

Casey Stengel, sometimes reputed as the greatest 20th-century American philosopher, is reported to have asked a simple but critical question: “Can’t anybody here play this game?”  He was apparently referring not to the Obama administration’s Middle East policy, but to the ineffectiveness and hapless performance of the New York Mets, the team he was managing.

President Barack Obama stated in an interview in Vox on January 23, 2015 that the goal of any good foreign policy “is having a vision and aspirations and ideals, but also recognizing the world as it is, where it is, and figuring out how you tack to the point where things are better than they were before.”

It is obvious that the United States does not have solutions to every problem in the 21st century.  However, the urgent issue at the moment is whether Obama is accurately recognizing the state of relations of the United States and its five allies with Iran, and the likelihood of successful negotiations between the parties.

The dramatic decision on April 13, 2015 by Russian President Vladimir V. Putin to deliver to Iran the S-300, the most advanced air defense missile system, believed to be the Russian version of the U.S. Patriot missile system, has come as an unwelcome surprise to the White House.  Putin’s action is a direct confrontational challenge to the U.S. and to the international concern to limit Iran’s nuclear program.  The missile system, which has different versions with different capabilities, is intended to protect the country against rockets, missiles, and aircraft.

This arms sale, in addition to being a very public projection of Russian power and disregard for the views of the United States administration, is also likely to be the forerunner of business deals, including arms supplies, between other countries and Iran.  Putin’s decision comes at a moment when President Obama has said he would sign a compromise bill giving Congress the opportunity to review and respond to the final text of the multinational negotiations between the P5+1 powers and Iran on the latter’s nuclear facilities.  Thus, the U.S. Senate will vote on legislation to approve any agreement with Iran.

Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said that the delivery of the advanced weaponry was being made “given the progress in talks on Iran’s nuclear program.”  This statement suggests that the arms deal is the direct result of the legitimacy Iran has obtained from the publication of two documents on April 2, 2015.  One is a document that the U.S. State Department has called “The Framework Agreement.”  The other is a declaration issued by the Iranian foreign minister, Mohammed Javad Zarif.  To this date there is a contradiction between the documents and declared intentions.

The position of U.S. Secretary State John Kerry is that there will be a phased removal of sanctions imposed against Iran after an agreement has been reached.  In contradiction, the Iranian leaders – Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, President Hassan Rouhani, and foreign minister Zarif – have all demanded that all sanctions, economic and financial, imposed on Iran be lifted on the day of a final agreement, and that there will not be an agreement if this removal of sanctions is not accomplished.  They have specified that this position is non-negotiable.

In addition, the Iranian leaders insist that Iranian military sites will be off limits to inspectors.  Already it is clear that the lifting of sanctions, demanded by the Iranian leaders, will not only help the Iranian economy in general, but also provide financial resources to strengthen its military machine and sponsorship of terrorism.

The possession of the S-300 weapon system by Iran will clearly have at least two consequences.  First, it is likely to make Iran a more aggressive power.  It will make any air strike by Israel or the United States against an Iranian defense system more difficult, if not impossible.  Second, in the event of no agreement on Iran’s nuclear activity, the use of military force to halt further development may not be feasible.

The arms deal, worth $800 million, was first signed in 2007, but the sale was suspended, partly because of international pressure from the United States and Israel and partly because of the embargo on arms transfers to Iran imposed by the U.N. Security Council in 2010.  Though that embargo is technically still in effect, the Russians will now deliver S-300 missile system, five squadrons, with missiles that have a range of 93 miles and can fire at multiple targets flying up to 90,000 feet.  Russia has offered Iran an even more advanced system, but no agreement has been reached.  Russia is also negotiating a $20-billion oil-for-goods agreement with Iran.

The missiles clearly pose a threat to the State of Israel, especially if they are given by Iran to Hezb’allah, Hamas, or Syrian president Assad.  All three, as well as Iran, are capable of striking deep inside the State of Israel.  Hamas has already been receiving from Iran heavy machinery and engineering tools that it has been rapidly using to reconstruct tunnels that will allow attacks from the Gaza Strip into Israel, as well as supplying an arsenal of rockets with which to make those attacks. Iran has also been arming members of Hamas who are resident in the West Bank.

The specious answer by the Russian president and foreign minister to criticism of its action is that the S-300 system has only defense capabilities, that it is not designed for attacks, and that it does not pose a threat to the security of any country in the Middle East, including Israel.  The arms sale, the foreign minister said, will stimulate a constructive process of the talks on Iran’s nuclear program.  What was left unsaid by Lavrov, whose cynical humor is not always fully understood by Western interlocutors, is that if the negotiations fail, Iran will resume its nuclear program and also have the advanced S-300 system.

Once again, the resurgent Russian nationalism of President Putin has manifested in an aggressive policy to exert power and influence through military actions not only in Eastern Ukraine, in Crimea, and in the Donbas region, but also elsewhere in the world, including the Middle East.  Control of Crimea, allowing expansion of its Black Sea fleet, provides Russia with a platform for its projection of power, as a forward operating base with mobile ballistic missile systems, capable of air defense and surface attack.

General Philip Breedlove, NATO supreme allied commander, on February 25, 2015 called for the United States and its allies to respond to Russia’s offensive campaign, diplomatically and economically if not militarily.  These countries must also counter, by similar means and the effective use of informational tools, the danger of an Iran being armed with advanced weapons.  Finally, they must recognize the fallacy of removing sanctions imposed on Iran.

Michael Curtis


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

ISIS drive on Ramadi could be a game changer - Rick Moran

by Rick Moran

The administration is downplaying the threat, saying that if IS takes Ramadi, it won't be a big deal. But the Iraqi government begs to differ and is pouring troops into the battle to keep IS from overrunning the city.

Every time the administration tries to spin the war against Islamic State in Iraq as going well, IS fighters make them out to be liars.

Last week, the administration trotted a Pentagon spokesman out to tell the press that US coalition efforts have pushed Islamic State out of 30% of the territory they captured last year.

No problem, says IS. We'll just take Ramadi and make you look like fools.

Ramadi, the city in Anbar province that has earned a place in the Marine Corps history as a bloody victory in 2005, is under a dire threat from Islamic State forces who are attacking the outskirts and threatening to overturn the US plans in Iraq.

The administration is downplaying the threat, saying that if IS takes Ramadi, it won't be a big deal. But the Iraqi government begs to differ and is pouring troops into the battle to keep IS from overrunning the city.
Although troops and armed tribesmen had previously been able to stop the militants reaching the compound that hosts the provincial government and security headquarters, Mr Fahdawi said it was now within range of their weapons.
The interior ministry has sent "an urgent response unit", but Mr Fahdawi said the reinforcements were insufficient to repel the assault.
Another member of the provincial council insisted that Ramadi was not falling.
But Farhan Mohammed told the BBC that while Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and Defence Minister Khaled al-Obeidi were both out of the country, Anbar was in the midst of a major battle.
He accused the government in Baghdad of not being serious about tackling the crisis in the province.
The BBC's Paul Adams says Anbar is overwhelmingly Sunni Muslim and its leaders have accused the Shia-dominated government of ignoring their concerns - something that has helped to turn Anbar into fertile territory for IS.
The latest fighting is taking its toll on the people of Ramadi, who have suffered terribly for more than a decade, our correspondent adds.
More than 2,000 families had fled from their homes because of the fighting, migration ministry official Sattar Nowruz told AP.
How bad would it be if IS took Ramadi? You will note the tone of frustration by the Sunni leader, chastising the government for not caring. This is is the suspicion harbored by many Sunnis in Anbar, who can't decide who's the bigger enemy; Shia militias that rampage through Sunni towns or Islamic State fanatics who execute anyone they don't much care for.
ISIS’s defeat in Tikrit could not have happened without thousands of Shiite militia members, many trained, advised and armed by Iranian Quds force members. When Iraqi and militas forces faltered, the U.S.-led coalition began airstrikes on the condition that Iranian advisers on the ground leave.
But in Ramadi, which sits 70 miles northwest of Baghdad, there is no significant Shiite militia presence. Rather, there’s an Iraqi Security forces that is struggling to fend off the ISIS threat on its own.
Should Iraqi forces appear to only be able to win with the help of militiamen that reportedly looted their communities, it could exacerbate the very same sectarian tensions that led to the rise of ISIS.
“It can increase Sunni resentment and can set the stage of future Sunni resistance against Shiite advancement,” Gartenstein-Ross said. Given that the groups were also backed in some way by Iran “creates risks of perception of regional Shite war.”
And with less territory to control, there could be more ISIS fighters available to move to other areas to “surge them somewhere else or try to capture new territory.”
A week ago, the administration was debating whether they should try to retake Mosul this spring or wait until the fall. Now they have disaster staring them in the face and the best they can do is pretend that what matters almost more than anything, doesn't matter at all.

If Ramadi falls, most of Anbar goes with it and civil war with the Shia militias becomes more likely. That's a scenario that would blow up US plans for the future in Iraq and allow Islamic State a virtual free hand in the western and central parts of the country.

Rick Moran


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

Hamas's Plan: A Hamas State of Palestine in Gaza (For Now) - Khaled Abu Toameh

by Khaled Abu Toameh

Translations of this item:
Hamas is consolidating its grip over the Gaza Strip and making plans to turn it into a separate state.
Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah consider the purported plan a "severe blow" to the two-state solution and unity among Palestinians.
The Americans and Europeans will also have to listen very carefully to what Hamas is saying: namely that a Palestinian state in the West Bank or Gaza Strip -- or any part of the Palestinian territories, would not end its struggle to destroy Israel and replace it with the State of Greater Palestine.

As the U.S. Administration and the international community continue to push for a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians, Hamas seems to be working toward establishing an independent state of its own in the Gaza Strip.

In recent weeks, reports have surfaced in a number of Arab and Western media outlets to the effect that Hamas leaders have decided to establish a "higher committee" for managing the affairs of the Gaza Strip.

Although Hamas spokesmen have denied the reports, sources close to the Islamist movement said that discussions were underway with representatives of other Palestinian groups in the Gaza Strip to set up the "higher committee."

The sources said that the decision came after Hamas gave up on the idea of achieving "national reconciliation" with Mahmoud Abbas's rival Fatah faction.

Abbas and Fatah see the talk about a "higher committee" as a sign of Hamas's intention to proceed with its scheme to establish a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip. They consider the purported plan a "severe blow" to the two-state solution and unity among Palestinians.

Mahmoud Zahar, a senior Hamas leader, last week confirmed that his movement was working toward turning the Gaza Strip into an independent state. "There is nothing wrong or shameful about labeling the current situation in the Gaza Strip an authority or administration," Zahar said. "If we establish an emirate or state in the Gaza Strip or in any part of Palestine, this would not mean that we are prepared to give up one inch of Palestine."

He later went on to explain that Abbas's Fatah faction, which controls the West Bank, would be excluded from the proposed administration in the Gaza Strip "because of its collusion with the Israeli occupation."

Zahar's statements came amid mounting tensions between Hamas and the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority.

Senior Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar is shown in an August 2014 television clip, addressing a Hamas rally to celebrate their attacks on Israel during last summer's Operation Protective Edge. (Image source: MEMRI video screenshot)

In the past few weeks, Hamas leaders stepped up their criticism of Abbas, who recently celebrated his 80th birthday, and called for his removal from the political scene. Hamas leaders also do not miss an opportunity to remind everyone that Abbas is no longer a legitimate president, because his term in office expired back in January 2009.

Salah Bardaweel, another senior Hamas official, said that Abbas was acting as if he were a dictator "who lives in a state of personal intransigence and total refusal to share powers."

Hamas's attacks on Abbas are seen by some Palestinians as part of its efforts to prepare for the creation of a separate entity or state in the Gaza Strip. Today it has become obvious that the talk about "national reconciliation" and "unity" between Hamas and Fatah is not serious.

Hamas and Fatah officials agree that the split between the West Bank and Gaza Strip is likely to continue for many years.

Abbas's repeated statements that there would be no Palestinian state without the Gaza Strip reflect nothing but wishful thinking on his part. Deep inside, Abbas knows that Hamas is not going to allow him to set foot in the Gaza Strip or set up any governing body there.

Abbas and the Palestinian Authority continue to seek the world's help and support in establishing an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem. But they are not telling the world how exactly they intend to achieve this goal, at a time when Hamas is consolidating its grip over the Gaza Strip and making plans to turn it into a separate state.

Palestinian political analysts believe that it is only a matter of time before Hamas succeeds in fulfilling its scheme to turn the Gaza Strip into an independent state.

"The discussion is no longer whether there is a separationist plan for the Gaza Strip, but when and how it would be implemented," said Hassan Asfour, a former Palestinian Authority minister affiliated with Fatah. "It is the duty of the Palestinian Authority leadership to say what it intends to do to foil this plan."

Addressing the Palestinian Authority president, Asfour added: "Mr. Mahmoud Abbas, it is not enough to talk on television about [Hamas's] separation plan. Think of ways to thwart it. Otherwise, no one will say that Hamas 'hijacked' the Gaza Strip; instead everyone will be talking about how the Palestinian Authority leadership abandoned the Gaza Strip."

If and when Hamas carries out its plan and establishes its own sovereign state in the Gaza Strip, the international community, primarily the U.S. and EU, will have to come to terms with the fact that the two-state solution has finally been realized; the Palestinians ended up with two states of their own -- an Islamist emirate in the Gaza Strip and a PLO-controlled state in the West Bank.

The Americans and Europeans will also have to listen very carefully to what Hamas is saying: namely, that a Palestinian state in the West Bank or Gaza Strip, or any part of the Palestinian territories, would not end its struggle to destroy Israel and replace it with the State of Greater Palestine. Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter

Khaled Abu Toameh


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

Putin Warns Israel: Do Not Send Arms to Ukraine - Arutz Sheva Staff

by Arutz Sheva Staff

Moscow threatens that sending arms to Kiev in retaliation for S-300 missile agreement with Iran will raise the death toll.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned Israel against sending arms to Ukraine on Saturday, days after reports emerged that Jerusalem would be in contact with Kiev in retaliation for Moscow lifting a ban on S-300 missile sales to Tehran. 

Putin warned in an interview on Russian television that Israeli retaliatory measures would only bring on a new round of violence and raise the death toll in the embattled Donetsk region of eastern Ukraine, which has been the center of a bloody war between the Ukrainian army and pro-Russian separatists for over a year. 

“It’s a choice for the Israeli leadership to make, they can do what they see necessary,” Putin said.

Putin signed a decree on Monday lifting a ban on the delivery of S-300 anti-missile rocket systems to Iran. 

His latest comments surface days after Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu phoned him to express Israel's great concerns over the deal. In the phone call, Netanyahu warned Putin that the sale will increase Iran's aggression in the region and shake the security of the Middle East.

Russia signed a contract in 2007 to supply Iran with five S-300 advanced missile batteries, which can be used against aircraft or guided missiles, at a cost of $800 million.

In 2010, Russia's then-president Dmitry Medvedev cancelled the deal, after the United States and Israel applied strong pressure on him. Both countries worry that the S-300 would make Iran less vulnerable to attack by either one of them, and motivate Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.

Arutz Sheva Staff


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

Islamic Jihad Comes to Campus - David Horowitz

by David Horowitz

According to the FBI, three-fifths of all religious hate crimes in America are now committed against Jews, while a recent Pew poll revealed that 54 percent of Jewish students have either been the subject of an anti-Semitic attack or witnessed one.

wall_of_liesLearn about the Freedom Center’s “Jew Hatred on Campus” Campaign.
Originally published by the Washington Times

The world is witnessing a resurgence of global anti-Semitism not seen since the 1930s and the “Final Solution.” In the Middle East, Hitler-admiring regimes like Iran, and Hitler-admiring parties like Hezbollah, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, are openly planning to finish the job the Nazis started. Even in America, until now the most hospitable place outside of Israel for Jews, the atmosphere is more hostile than at any time in the last 70 years.

According to the FBI, three-fifths of all religious hate crimes in America are now committed against Jews, while a recent Pew poll revealed that 54 percent of Jewish students have either been the subject of an anti-Semitic attack or witnessed one. The frequency of these attacks among college-aged students, moreover, is five times that of any other age group. The reason for this is obvious: Across the United States student groups associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, specifically Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and the Muslim Students Association, are engaged in a vitriolic campaign against Israel and those students who support its right to exist. These organizations promote the propaganda of the terrorist organization Hamas, and call for the destruction of the Jewish state.

Students for Justice in Palestine, the more active of the two groups, claims to support a left-wing agenda of “social justice,” and “universal human rights.” Like the left itself, though, Students for Justice in Palestine doesn’t stand for the rights of Palestinians in the territories controlled by Palestinians, including the rights of Palestinians to disagree with each other without being targeted by their terrorist rulers. Instead, SJP’s sole agenda is the destruction of the Jewish state.

While SJP’s self-professed purpose is “to promote self-determination for the Palestinian people,” the organization defines the boundaries of this liberation as extending “from the river to the sea,” i.e., from the Jordan River on Israel’s eastern border to its western border on the Mediterranean. To advance this genocidal agenda, SJP endorses the lie that Israel was created on territory stolen from the Palestinians and, therefore, Jews illegally occupy Arab lands from which they must be purged.

In fact, Israel was created on land that had belonged to the Turks, who are not Arabs, for 400 years previously. In 1948 when Israel was created, there was no Palestinian political entity, no movement for a Palestinian state, and no people calling itself Palestinian. These core genocidal lies make up the primary agenda of SJP and its anti-Jewish allies, and are crowned by the ludicrous claim that Israel is an “apartheid state” with policies worthy of the “Nazis.” In fact, Israel is the only democratic and ethnically tolerant state in the Middle East, the only place where gays, Christians and women are safe. The real Nazis in the Middle East are the Arabs who openly call for the extermination of the Jews.

Despite its anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist agendas, SJP is funded by university fees. University administrations officially recognize the organization and grant it the privilege of erecting walls of hate, and conducting “die-ins” and other propaganda stunts in campus centers where other students can’t avoid being assaulted by their noxious accusations.

University administrators who refuse to rein in this hatred operate under pressure from faculty and student activists of the anti-Israel “social justice” left. These include the self-hating Jews of J Street and Jewish Voice for Peace, who join hands with their mortal enemies to condemn anyone who confronts SJP and the malignant forces it represents as “Islamophobes.”

As it happens, “Islamophobe” is a term coined by the Muslim Brotherhood to demonize its opponents, and the center of a campaign seeking a universal ban on critics as religious blasphemers. The campaign’s success can be seen in President Obama’s refusal to call the terrorist Islamic State “Islamic,” or to describe the war waged by the Islamic State, al Qaeda and other Islamic terror organizations as a religious crusade.

Thanks to the savageries of the Islamic State, however, Americans have begun to wake up and to see Jews as canaries in the mine, and to understand that what is happening to Jews is also happening to Christians and others in the way of Islamic Nazis. Nonetheless, the continuing successes of front organizations such as Students for Justice in Palestine are ominous indicators of the dangers that confront us, and should be a wake-up call, too.

David Horowitz was one of the founders of the New Left in the 1960s and an editor of its largest magazine, Ramparts. He is the author, with Peter Collier, of three best selling dynastic biographies: The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty (1976); The Kennedys: An American Dream (1984); and The Fords: An American Epic (1987).


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

The Other Face of Terrorism - Raheel Raza

by Raheel Raza

We live in a country where we embrace liberal democracy, gender equality, freedom of speech and individual freedoms, so we naïvely think that everyone who comes here has the same values. Wrong. Those are the very values that the terrorists abhor.
We must be aware that there are organizations and individuals right here in the United States and Canada who have exactly the same ideology as Boko Haram, the Taliban and ISIS. The only difference is these North American organizations are required to follow the law of the land.
In many instances, these subversive organizations have succeeded in suppressing free speech by aggressively intimidating academic institutions.
This threatening, silencing and censoring is the other face of terrorism.

According to a UNICEF report published this week, an estimated 800,000 children in and around Nigeria were forced from their homes by Boko Haram extremists. This report was published almost a year after the mass kidnappings of nearly 300 schoolgirls from Chibok. There are reports that many of these kidnapped girls were terrorized, raped and later forced to marry their captors.

On the other side of the world, the Taliban have been consistently targeting women and girls. Human Rights Watch's World Report for 2015 says that there continue to be threats to women's rights and freedom of expression. The report notes that other setbacks for women's rights in 2014 included a continuing series of attacks on, threats toward, and assassinations of, high-profile women, including policewomen and activists, to whom the government failed to respond with any meaningful measures to protect them in the future. Nobel laureate Malala Yousafzai, who was shot in the head for asking for education, is a sad testimony to the Taliban's hatred toward educated and empowered women and its terrorist attacks on unarmed schoolgirls.

In between these two worlds, there exists yet another terrorist threat to women. The Islamic State (ISIS) has consistently targeted women in their brutal battle for control of the Muslim world. In this process, members of ISIS have perpetrated barbaric and horrific attacks on minority Yazidi women. Haleh Esfandiari, the director of the Middle East program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, explains how the extremist group attacks women when they seize an area. "They usually take the older women to a makeshift slave market and try and sell them. The younger girls, basically they ... are raped or married off to fighters," Esfandiari said. "It's based on temporary marriages, and once these fighters have had sex with these young girls, they just pass them on to other fighters."

What do these three groups, Boko Haram, the Taliban and ISIS, which are terrorizing our world today, have in common?
  • They are Islamists touting political Islam over the spiritual message and looking for political power and hegemony in the Muslim world
  • Their ideology is: We are the only ones who know the truth; we will lead and others should follow without questioning our tactics, and only then will they find salvation (perhaps a few virgins thrown in for fun); The West is evil and we will teach them a lesson; our ideology must engulf the Muslim world with the establishment of a Caliphate.
  • They work on creating terror among their victims by using tactics of intimidation and threats both physical and emotional.
  • As they operate in countries where there is little accountability or law enforcement, they are able to get away with acts of violence and terror, mostly against women and minorities.
Those of us living comfortable lives in North America, sometimes think that this is all happening "out there somewhere," and that we are safe from these terrorists. We live in a country where we embrace liberal democracy, gender equality, freedom of speech and individual freedoms, so we naïvely think that everyone who comes here has the same values. Wrong. Those are the very values that the terrorists abhor, as they tell us time and again.

We must be aware that there are organizations and individuals right here in the United States and Canada who have exactly the same ideology as Boko Haram, the Taliban and ISIS. The only difference is that these North American organizations are required to follow the law of the land. They therefore cannot use violent measures against women and minorities quite so overtly while living here; so they resort to subversive tactics.

They nevertheless follow similar ideologies as other terrorist groups:
  • Follow us -- we will represent you as we are the ones on the right path.
  • Others (especially women) who are speaking of reform and change within the Muslim world are heretics and not really good Muslims because many of them do not wear a hijab.
  • These "heretics" are friends with the "infidels" so how could they be true representatives of Islam or Muslims?
  • We will tell you what "authentic" Islam is, and anyone questioning the status quo is an Islamophobic racist bigot, so we will help you play the "victim card."
This is a message that resonates not only from some pulpits, but from some Muslim organizations based in U.S. and Canada, which like to say that they are the voice of the majority of Muslims living here. What is frightening is how many people fall into the trap of believing them, including some of the mainstream media.

It is not surprising, therefore, that a film such as Honor Diaries, which exposes injustices and violence against women in Muslim-majority societies, is a slap in the face of some of these North American Muslim organizations. They cannot handle the truth; they have been caught, cornered and trapped. The only way to deflect the issue is to intimidate and silence those who speak out. Like Boko Haram, the Taliban and ISIS, they specifically target women because they think they are the weaker gender.

Subversive North American Islamist organizations have succeeded in suppressing free speech, writes Raheel Raza, such as using intimidation in attempts to cancel screenings of the film Honor Diaries. The film exposes injustices and violence against women in Muslim-majority societies. Above, a screenshot from Honor Diaries, relating to child brides.

In many instances, these subversive organizations have succeeded in suppressing free speech by aggressively intimidating academic institutions. Recently Asra Nomani, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, experienced Duke students trying to cancel her speech.

Recently, at The University of South Dakota, one screening of Honor Diaries was cancelled, and at another screening, there were threats and intimidation toward the faculty and the speaker.

This threatening, silencing and censoring is the other face of terrorism; it is no wonder that one such organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, famous for trying to silence free speech, finds its name on the terrorist list published even by the United Arab Emirates. Follow Raheel Raza on Twitter and Facebook

Raheel Raza


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

Postcard from the past - Nadav Shragai

by Nadav Shragai

A new translation of the Latin accounts of one of the most famous 15th century pilgrims to the Holy Land, Friar Felix Fabri, includes unique, humorous descriptions of Solomon's Stables, the Tomb of Absalom, the Tomb of the Patriarchs, and more.

Photo credit: Ariel

Nadav Shragai


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

An Invasion of Refugees - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield


“This is a place of inspiring memories. Here less than a thousand men, inspired by the urge of freedom, defeated a superior force intrenched in this strategic position,” President Herbert Hoover said.

“This small band of patriots turned back a dangerous invasion.”

But no matter how often dangerous invasions are defeated, they come again.

The thousand men that Hoover spoke of gained their victory at the Battle of Kings Mountain. The Spartan Regiment that fought there when, as Theodore Roosevelt wrote, “All the Southern lands lay at the feet of the conquerors” and “There was not a single organized body of American troops left” gave their name to Spartanburg, South Carolina.

And now, Spartanburg faces a dangerous invasion with only a handful of patriots inspired by the urge of freedom to stand against it.

The invasion is a silent and secret one. The soldiers come as refugees funneled through ratlines run by liberal churches and other pseudo-religious organizations. Tens of thousands of Muslim migrants come from conflict zones to small towns and cities across the country just like Spartanburg each year.

But Spartanburg’s fighting spirit is still alive and Congressman Trey Gowdy, who represents the Spartanburg area, has challenged a plan to dump migrants, including possibly Syrians, there, inquiring whether they have criminal records and what background checks have been performed on them.

According to Thomas Jefferson, the Battle of Kings Mountain turned the tide in the Revolutionary War. Likewise the shot fired at Spartanburg may have great implications for the rest of the country. The invasion of Spartanburg is really an invasion of America through the Refugee Resettlement Program.

Most Americans know very little about the machinery of migration. They only notice that something is happening when their towns begin to change and their way of life begins to come apart. When they do think about immigration, their impression is of a massive howitzer cannon firing off new arrivals into major cities. Refugee resettlement however is more of a sniper rifle targeting places like Spartanburg with a limited number of arrivals that then begin to dramatically transform their host area through community organizations, localized welfare and the chain migration of families.

And then before you know it, what used to be Cedar-Riverside on the Mississippi is Little Mogadishu and what was Wilmar on the Great Northern Railway is Little Mogadishu and what was Lewiston of the mills is also another Little Mogadishu. And then eventually America becomes one big Mogadishu.

In 1980, Jimmy Carter signed Ted Kennedy’s Refugee Act into law. The Refugee Act used the UN definition of refugee while allowing up to 50,000 refugees to be admitted each year. The number has since increased with 70,000 refugees admitted last year alone. The ceiling for the number of refugees is determined each year. And that determination has a significant impact on the lives of Americans.

Refugee resettlement has long since become a machine bringing together an army of bureaucrats from a number of different offices with religious contractors who act as Volags, short for Voluntary Agencies, providing a pious justification for the colonization of the country while they gorge on taxpayer funds.

The list of Volags includes the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society and the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, but the refugees are rarely of their faith.

The number one language spoken by refugees admitted to the United States last year is Arabic. The third most common language is Somali.

Almost twice as many Somalis as Spanish-speakers were admitted as refugees last year. Minnesota alone has suffered under the weight of over 10,000 Somalis over the last decade. And the number of Somalis more than tripled under Obama, flooding communities and devastating entire areas of the country.

The number of Arabic speakers also drastically increased, going from under 10,000 to nearly 18,000. We took in four Arabic speaking refugees for every Spanish-speaking refugee.

While it might be nice to imagine that persecuted Christians or Yazidis are being taken in from Syria, the vast majority of refugees are Sunni Muslims, the same sect that birthed Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS.

In one month, we took in 437 Sunni Muslims from Syria, 1 Catholic, 47 Christians and 1 Yazidi.

The Volags may invoke the Bible in defense of refugee resettlement, but they are invoking it in the service of the Koran. Whether a cross or a star dangles on the door, inside is the dark crescent of Islam.

Unlike most other forms of immigration, refugee resettlement is the most dangerous and the least likely to be questioned. Its tactic of dumping migrants into communities, which are swiftly forced to adapt to demands for interpreters, social services, welfare and violence, is clothed in the pious garb of religion.

While the government gives religious groups money, they give it moral shielding, and the local people lose their rights, their homes, their money and sometimes their lives. But the attack on Spartanburg has brought attention to the practices of this secretive and deceptive program.

Congressman Gowdy’s letter is an important first step in casting light on its shadowy practices. While many Americans who have lost jobs, homes and loved ones to this terrible tide have come to despair, the lesson of Spartanburg remains with us. A handful of patriots prevailed in South Carolina against superior odds when the cause seemed abandoned and lost, when the armies that should have stood had broken and only a handful of rebels remained from what had once been a great cause.

America was built by handfuls of patriots doing their part in the right place at the right time. We remember the pivotal movements, but we often forget the length of the road to their victories.

All the statistics and information in this article came from one site, Ann Corcoran’s Refugee Resettlement Watch.

On July 1st, 2007, Ann debuted her first post, a fact sheet on Refugee Resettlement. Ten days later, she recorded 200 views and commented that, “If the mainstream media won’t touch this issue, won’t investigate it or debate it, guess we will be going around them directly to you.”

Today Ann continues to drive the debate in directions the media doesn’t want. Her work has reached Gowdy’s attention and it has armed thousands of citizen activists with the information that they need to protect their homes, their communities and their country. She is an example of how we can all make a difference by tackling individual issues overlooked by many with thoroughness, clarity and depth.

“It was a little army and a little battle, but it was of mighty portent,” Hoover said of the Spartan Regiment and the Battle of Kings Mountain.

Even if we do not form great armies and fight great battles, we can all be little armies fighting little battles and it may be that we shall one day learn that these little battles were of mighty portent.

America faces battles on many fronts. The greatest of these is the battle for our identity. We fight for our right to be who we are. Who we always were. The mass migration is not immigration, it is colonization. Its goal is to destroy the American system by destroying the American spirit.

When we fight even the little battles for our way of life, we keep that spirit, the spirit of the Spartan Regiment, the spirit of Spartanburg, alive.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


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

Share It