Friday, October 13, 2017

Iran's secret sites linked to nuclear weapons development revealed - Hollie McKay




by Hollie McKay

The Iranian Resistance has identified four major sites that “with high degrees of certainty” have been involved in various aspects of the allegedly ongoing nuclear weapons project.

President Donald Trump is expected this week to “decertify” the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), better known simply as the Iran deal, declaring that the agreement reached in 2015 by the U.S. and five other international powers is not in America’s national interest. The matter will then be tossed back to Congress, which will have 60 days to decide whether to reimpose hefty pre-2015 sanctions.

While the President’s likely move has generated wide condemnation from foreign policy leaders — who reiterate that the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has maintained Iran is in compliance — a new 52-page investigative report by the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), entitled: “Iran’s Nuclear Core: Uninspected Military Sites,” obtained exclusively by Fox News and slated for release Wednesday, asserts that the country’s nuclear weapons program has far from halted.

“It has been known for years that Iran has two nuclear programs — one is civilian and the other, the military, has the goal of giving Iran its first nuclear bomb,” Alireza Jafarzadeh, deputy director of the Washington office of the NCRI, also referred to as the Iranian Resistance, and considered the primary opposition coalition to the clerical administration of Iran, told Fox News. “The civilian sector of the nuclear program has systematically provided a plausible logistical cover for the military sector, and acts as a conduit for it. The military aspect of the program has been and remains at the heart of Iran’s nuclear activities.”

The Iranian Resistance has been monitoring the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-controlled entity tasked with building the nuclear bomb, the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research (Sazman-e Pazhouheshhaye Novin-e Defa’i), known by its Persian acronym SPND, for nearly two decades. SPND is comprised of 7 subdivisions, each of which carries out a certain portion of nuclear weapons research.

The unit responsible for conducting research and building a trigger for a nuclear weapon is called the Center for Research and Expansion of Technologies for Explosion and Impact (Markaz-e Tahghighat va Tose’e Fanavari-e Enfejar va Zarbeh), known by its acronym METFAZ.

Since April 2017, when the NCRI found out about a new military location being used by SPND, the coalition has focused its attention on all the potential SPND sites that we suspected were tasked with building the bomb. The NCRI’s investigation inside Iran was conducted by the network associated with the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), which was responsible for blowing the cover off the program, particularly since 2002.

“The more we investigated, the more we realized that the weaponization program is fully operational,” Jafarzadeh said. “The military sector has gone through changes in name, location and reorganizations over the years. However, it has never halted its work and key figures in the sector have remained unchanged.”

One of the key issues of the verification process, the report states, has been access to Iran’s military sites. The regime’s highest officials — from Ali-Akbar Velayti, a foreign policy advisor to Ali Khamenei, the current Supreme Leader of Iran, to Gholam-Hossein Sa’edi, brigadier general of Iran’s elite IRGC, have stated publicly over the past month that they will continue to refuse to allow IAEA inspections of their military sites.

“An important feature of the Iranian regime’s nuclear program is that several sites and centers where nuclear-related activities are conducted are situated in sprawling military complexes that also house scores of tunnels and silos. This not only makes IAEA access to these locations more difficult, but also makes it possible to relocate these centers and projects to other locations within the complex,” Jafarzadeh explained. “As such, if it becomes necessary to relocate a project or center, it can easily be moved to a different silo or tunnel within the parameters of the military site. This makes pinpointing the exact location of nuclear research and activities more challenging, and reduces the chance of exposure.”

As detailed in the report, the Iranian Resistance has identified four major sites that “with high degrees of certainty” have been involved in various aspects of the allegedly ongoing nuclear weapons project.


nuc_parchin
Parchin Military Complex at South East Tehran 

The first one pinpointed is Pazhouheshkadeh, located at the Parchin military complex 30 miles southeast Tehran, which the report claims has in recent times become the main center for METFAZ’s tests. Parchin, where the country’s military Research Academy is situated, is a sprawling military district run by the Defense Ministry with 12 military and missile complexes. The Defense Ministry refers to each of these units as a “plan,” and the METFAZ center is said to be placed at Plan 6 — officially part of the chemical industries of Parchin complex — a fully IRGC-protected and -fenced in 500-acre parcel.


nuc_plan6
Plan 6 Zeinoddin in Parchin military complex 

“To conceal the true nature of its work, the Research Academy conducts its research and activities under the cover of conventional research. However, the Research Academy itself is completely independent and closed off,” the report mandates, adding that since the end of 2015 the IAEA is able to have “very limited access with all sorts of restrictions” to that area inside Parchin.


nuc_plan6c
Plan 6 of Parchin as well as other sections in the vicinity 

The report then distinguishes the Nouri Industrial site, situated at the completely secure Khojir military complex southeast of Tehran and spanning 75 square miles.


nuc_khojir
General area of Khojir 

“The project to actively pursue production of nuclear warheads is conducted in Khojir by the Hemmat Missile Industries Group,” the report notes. “Due to the extreme sensitivity of manufacturing nuclear warheads, Nouri Industry has its own security and military police; individuals who have clearance to other parts of Khojir site are not allowed to go to this section.”


nuc_khojir_parking
Parking entrance for Nouri Industry 

Intelligence findings also reveal that “scores of large underground tunnels have been constructed in this military complex,” this providing “the possibility and flexibility of covering up the activities of the warhead project, or transferring it to a different location in the complex.” Furthermore, the Iranian Resistance states that North Korean experts cooperate with the regime’s experts in the project, and have been “particularly helpful in designing the aerodynamics aspects, the shape of the warhead, and have also provided the design for the Hemmat site, its tunnels, and underground centers.”

Third, the report claims that the Hafte Tir site — which belongs to the Defense Ministry and is positioned in the military zone near the city of Isfahan, in a mountainous region adjacent to the Isfahan-Shiraz highway six miles from the town of Mobarakeh — is constructed with underground tunnels under the supervision of SPND under the supervision of IRGC Brigadier General Mohsen Fakhrizadeh-Mahabadi.

“In addition to all its security advantages and its location far removed from public sight, it is part of a sprawling military complex which provides the possibility of relocating within the complex and covering up the transfer,” the report states. “The research site related to nuclear activities is located inside of a tunnel, which is about 0.4 miles and contains four galleries. Since Hafte Tir military industries in Isfahan constitutes a major part of the regime’s ammunition production, the cover of a conventional military site protects the work and keeps it secret.”

Workshops at the Hafte Tir reportedly were used in the past to produce centrifuge components, such as rotor cylinders, and it is believed that in addition to activities in the tunnels, the site “still has a capability to produce those components clandestinely.”


nuc_hafte
Hafte Tir military Complex near Isfahan 

The last site to be identified is the Sanjarian site, east of Tehran on the banks of the Jajrood River around 10 kilometers south of the end of the Babaei Highway, which until recently was deemed the central testing site of METFAZ and a SPND subdivision.


nuc_hafte2
Hafte Tir Military Industrial Complex under the supervision of SPND 

A major portion of the tests and experiments that used to be conducted at Sanjarian, have recently been transferred to Pazhouheshkadeh in Parchin, the findings indicate. While Sanjarian is still functional, it has seemingly become semi-active of late.


nuc_sanj1
NCRI exposed METFAZ location near Sanjarian Village in 2009. 


nuc_sanj2
METFAZ near Sanjarian village 

“Iran’s Nuclear Core: Uninspected Military Sites” concludes that specific intelligence relating to the aforementioned facilities and a further two headquarters “confirms that a significant portion of the various aspects of Iran’s nuclear project have been conceived and developed” even despite the landmark 2015 agreement.


nuc_hq
Nour Bldg and Mojdeh Site of SPND, considered headquarters for nuclear development 

“What is even more troubling is that none of the key nuclear sites situated in military centers have been inspected by the IAEA, certainly not since the JCPOA,” Jafarzadeh added. “Congress should step up pressure by introducing new sanctions to target the IRGC, as well as the apparatus of domestic repression. Because Tehran is vulnerable domestically, such pressure would effectively empower the people of Iran and the organized opposition, who demand fundamental change and seek a secular, democratic, nonnuclear republic in Iran.”

Nonetheless, the Iranian regime has threatened ”crushing” retaliation if Trump does indeed decertify its compliance, a move likely to come before the October 15 deadline. 


Hollie McKay has been a FoxNews.com staff reporter since 2007. She has reported extensively from the Middle East on the rise and fall of terrorist groups such as ISIS in Iraq. Follow her on twitter at @holliesmckay


Source: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/10/10/irans-secret-sites-linked-to-nuclear-weapons-development-revealed.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Trump admin withdraws US from UNESCO - JTA, Arutz Sheva Staff




by JTA, Arutz Sheva Staff

State Department announces US leaving UN body responsible for series of anti-Israel resolutions negating Jewish connection to Jerusalem.



UNESCO
UNESCO
Benoit Tessie, REUTERS
JTA - The United States has decided to withdraw from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) over its anti-Israel bias and need for reform, the Department of State announced.

The decision, which would become effective only in 2019, “was not taken lightly, and reflects US concerns with mounting arrears at UNESCO,” read the statement Thursday by the Department of State, in which the United States announced that it had notified UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova of its decision.

The statement cited “the need for fundamental reform in the organization, and continuing anti-Israel bias at UNESCO.”

UNESCO's board is set to meet next week and had announced that the anti-Israel resolutions it had intended to bring to a vote would be postponed for six months. This is seen by sources as a possbile attempt to stave off the actions of the US and Israel.

The United States indicated to the director general its desire to remain engaged with UNESCO as a non-member observer state “in order to contribute US views, perspectives and expertise on some of the important issues undertaken by the organization, including the protection of world heritage, advocating for press freedoms, and promoting scientific collaboration and education.”

The Paris-based body delighted the Palestinian Authority in July when it declared the Old City of Hevron in Judea as an endangered world heritage site. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu complained that the language of that resolution did not acknowledge the religious attachment of Jews to Hevron, a city which once served as the capital of the biblical Jewish kingdom of Judea and where the tomb of the patriarchs is located.

Prior to that resolution UNESCO also passed several resolutions ignoring Jewish ties to Jerusalem, drawing Israeli officials’ fury and criticism by Western countries – including by France, which supported the resolutions during votes.

Israel has reduced its funding for UN projects following those votes.

Six years ago, the United States cut off more than $80 million a year, about 22 percent of its entire budget for UNESCO, in reprisal for its acceptance of the Palestinian Authority as a member, Foreign Policy reported.

The Obama administration said it had to cut funds because a 1990s-era law prohibits U.S. funding for any U.N. agencies recognizing Palestine as a state. Israel also suspended its funding for UNESCO.

As a result of US funding cuts, US arrears in membership fees have been swelling each year, surpassing $500 million that’s owed to UNESCO, according to Foreign Policy. The decision to withdraw from UNESCO owes partly to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s desire to stop the growing debt.

The Reagan Administration decided to withdraw from the organization in 1984, at the height of the Cold War, citing corruption and what it considered an ideological tilt towards the Soviet Union against the West. President George W. Bush rejoined the organization in 2002, claiming it had gotten its books in order and expunged some of its most virulent anti-Western and anti-Israel biases.


JTA, Arutz Sheva Staff

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/236624

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Palestinian Normalization -- With Hamas, Not Israel - Bassam Tawil




by Bassam Tawil

Why do many Palestinians prefer peace with Hamas? Because they identify with Hamas's dream of destroying Israel and killing Jews.

  • The most widespread conspiracy theory, which has been floating around for decades and can be heard in almost every coffee shop on the streets of Cairo, Amman, Ramallah and Beirut, is that Zionist Jews, together with American capitalists and imperialists, have a secret plan to take control over the Arab and Islamic countries and their resources.
  • How exactly are the "Zionists and imperialists" trying to "undermine" the Palestinian "national project"? And what, precisely, is this project? Is it the project of Hamas and many other Palestinians that seeks the destruction of Israel?
  • The corrupt Arab and Palestinian leaders spread such rumors to divert attention from problems at home, such as corruption and dictatorship. These leaders want their people too busy hating Jews and Westerners to demand reform, democracy and transparency from their leaders. Those valuables, of course, are what Arab and Palestinian leaders still refuse to offer their people.
  • Why do many Palestinians prefer peace with Hamas? Because they identify with Hamas's dream of destroying Israel and killing Jews. It may be an unpleasant a truth, but that is the bottom line.
When Palestinian women took part in a march with Israeli women for peace this week, they were condemned in the harshest terms by many other Palestinians, who called for their punishment. The Palestinian women who participated in the October 8 event, organized by a group called Women Wage Peace, have been denounced by many of their own people as and "traitors" and "whores."

Conversely, when Palestinian Authority (PA) officials held "reconciliation" talks with Hamas leaders in the Gaza Strip and Egypt during the same period, many Palestinians praised them as "heroes" and "brave."

Judging from the reactions of many Palestinians, especially on social media, they prefer peace with Hamas rather than with Israel.

The thousands of Palestinian women who participated in the march with Israeli women are being accused of promoting "normalization" with Israel. This, in the eyes of their critics, is an abhorrent and despicable act, tantamount to "high treason" -- an offense punishable by death.


Palestinian and Israeli women from the "Women Wage Peace" group participate in an event on September 30, 2017. (Image source: Women Wage Peace/Facebook)
Prior to the women's march, Palestinian activists waged an online bid to stop the Palestinian women from taking part in the "shameful" event. It was a vicious campaign that lasted for several days and that accused the Palestinian women of treason for promoting "normalization" with the "Israeli enemy." One group, The Women's Campaign for Boycotting Israeli Merchandise, said in a statement that the planned march was "hurtful to Palestinian and Arab and international efforts to boycott and isolate Israel." The group pointed out that the march coincided with a "Zionist-imperialist onslaught to undermine the Palestinian national project."

Exactly which "Zionist-imperialist" conspiracy these protesters are referring to remains unclear.

Such rhetoric, however, reflects the mindset in the Arab and Islamic world. The most widespread conspiracy theory, which has been floating around for decades and can be heard in almost every coffee shop on the streets of Cairo, Amman, Ramallah and Beirut, is that Zionist Jews, together with American capitalists and imperialists, have a secret plan to take control over the Arab and Islamic countries and their resources.

What does a peaceful march of Israeli and Palestinian women have to do with Zionism and imperialism? How exactly are the "Zionists and imperialists" trying to "undermine" the Palestinian "national project"?

And what, precisely, is this project? Is it the project of Hamas and many other Palestinians that seeks the destruction of Israel? Is it the project that still talks about a phased plan to destroy Israel by demanding a Palestinian state next to Israel so that it would be used in the future as a launching pad to eliminate Israel?

Palestinian and Arab leaders have long advanced anti-Israel, anti-Jewish and anti-Western conspiracy theories. Why do these leaders do so? For one purpose: distraction.

The corrupt Arab and Palestinian leaders spread such rumors to divert attention from problems at home, such as corruption and dictatorship. These leaders want their people too busy hating Jews and Westerners to demand reform, democracy and transparency from their leaders. Those valuables, of course, are what Arab and Palestinian leaders still refuse to offer their people.

Back to the controversial women's march.

The abusive comments hurled against the Palestinian women who took part in the march are frankly embarrassing to read. Even the PLO committee that permitted the participation of the Palestinian women in the march is being pilloried by many Palestinians, with some calling for holding the PLO officials involved accountable.

The verbal abuse is reminiscent of the experience of teenage Palestinian girls who recently participated in a summer camp with Israeli girls in the US. The Palestinian girls endured a massive smear campaign for attending the summer camp, which was organized by Creativity for Peace, an organization in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Like the women from the march, the teenage girls were also cursed on social media and dubbed as "sluts" and "traitors." The abuse reached the parents of the Palestinian girls, for allowing their daughters to commit the sin of dancing and mixing with Israeli (Jewish) girls. The girls, like the women, were also accused of promoting "normalization" with Israel.

Sadly, only a handful of Palestinians have thus far dared to come out in defense of the summer camp girls or the women who participated in the October 8 march.

While many Palestinians may be opposed to the brutal and senseless attacks on the girls and women, they are terrified of voicing their views in public. No one wants to get targeted by the abusers, especially if some of these people are affiliated with terror groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

Palestinians have an unfortunate habit of allowing thugs and terrorists to intimidate them, control the discourse and set the agenda. This is certainly not new. Most Palestinians prefer to sit on the fence instead of speaking their minds. This is what happens when you live under ruthless dictatorships such as the Palestinian Authority and Hamas that suppress freedom of expression.

Yet this most recent exhibit has an ironic twist. Just as the women were shamed publicly for taking part in an event with Jewish women, many Palestinians were celebrating the "reconciliation" between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip took to the streets to express their jubilation over the "accord," and when the PA Prime Minister and his delegation arrived in the Gaza Strip from the West Bank, scenes of kissing and hugging were easy to spot.

What does all this teach us?

First, that many Palestinians continue to consider any form of contact with Jews and "normalization" with the "Zionist entity" an act of treason.

Second, that Palestinians do not hesitate to designate their own women as prostitutes and traitors for engaging in the most basic activities with Jews. Such disrespect for women is not, by the way, something that should surprise us about conservative Arab and Islamic societies.

Third, that for many Palestinians, the priority remains making peace with Hamas and not Israel. Why do they prefer peace with Hamas? Because they identify with Hamas's dream of destroying Israel and killing Jews. It may be an unpleasant a truth, but that is the bottom line.

Bassam Tawil is a Muslim based in the Middle East.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11144/palestinian-normalization-hamas

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

New York Times' Destroy-Trump Agenda Exposed - Joseph Klein




by Joseph Klein


Undercover video reveals a glimpse of the paper's editorial mentality.




Project Veritas has just released a video further confirming what we already know about the New York Times. It is a leading member of the anti-Trump fake news media club. In this video, Nick Dudich, Audience Strategy Editor for NYT Video, who manages videos displayed on social media for the Times, admitted on hidden-camera that the Times “always” makes sure that anti-Trump stories make it to the left-wing newspaper’s front page. When asked about being objective at the Times, which its ethical handbook says is so important to preserving its reputation, Dudich replied, “No I’m not, that’s why I’m here.” Indeed, Dudich carried his political biases from his days working on the political campaigns of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to the Times without missing a beat.

Dudich explained how he would target President Trump as a “journalist.” Dudich would go after the president’s businesses and family. His objective would be to “ruin the Trump brand” through relentless investigations. “He cares about his business more than he cares about being President,” Dudich said. “He would resign. Or he'd lash out and do something incredibly illegal, which he would have to."

In response to the Project Veritas video, a Times spokeswoman, Danielle Rhoades Ha, sought to marginalize Dudich’s role at the newspaper. She claimed that “a recent hire in a junior position violated our ethical standards and misrepresented his role. In his role at The Times, he was responsible for posting already published video on other platforms and was never involved in the creation or editing of Times videos. We are reviewing the situation now.”

Notably, the Times spokesperson did not comment on the substance of Dudich’s revelations. The fact is that Dudich is not an outlier at the New York Times. To the contrary, he embodies the Times’ fanatic anti-Trump resistance. According to a study conducted by Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, analyzing news coverage of President Trump’s first 100 days in office, the New York Times’ news stories on President Trump were 87 percent negative during that period.

The New York Times editors and columnists can vent all they want on the opinion pages. Readers can determine for themselves whether the arguments put forward in the opinion pieces hold up or not. However, it is unethical and intellectually dishonest for reporters who purport to present factual information in their articles to shed objectivity and take sides in their reporting. Yet the Times’ media columnist Jim Rutenberg wrote during the presidential campaign that there was nothing wrong with reporters, who believed Trump would be too dangerous if elected president, doing just that.

“If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous,” Jim Rutenberg wrote, “then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable. But the question that everyone is grappling with is: Do normal standards apply? And if they don’t, what should take their place?”

Rutenberg added, “Balance has been on vacation since Mr. Trump stepped onto his golden Trump Tower escalator last year to announce his candidacy.” The Times’ top editor, Dean Baquet, said he thought Rutenberg’s column endorsing “oppositional” journalism when it came to Donald Trump “nailed it.”

Rutenberg’s column appeared on the front page of the Times, just where Nick Dudich, the Times video editor, admitted on Project Veritas’s hidden camera that anti-Trump articles were “always” steered. 

The Times and its cohorts in the anti-Trump media failed to take down Trump’s candidacy. Unbowed, they are now intent on taking down his presidency with fake news articles putting their writers’ own negative spin on the president’s words and actions. For example, New York Times chief White House reporter Peter Baker wrote a bylined story billed as a “news analysis” last month entitled “A Divider, Not a Uniter, Trump Widens the Breach.” Baker distinguished his so-called “news analysis” from mere opinion, claiming to Fox News his “analysis” was based on “observation” while covering the president.

“Never in modern times has an occupant of the Oval Office seemed to reject so thoroughly the nostrum that a president’s duty is to bring the country together,” Baker wrote. Instead of reporting fairly on both sides of the national conversation over President Trump’s call for football players to stand up in silence during the pre-game singing of the national anthem (as required by the NFL’s own rules), Baker took one side of the issue and accused President Trump of being the “deacon of divisiveness.” He compared the president’s actions to those of “President Vladimir V. Putin in Russia and white supremacists in Charlottesville, Va.”
Baker’s article was a hit piece, not an attempt at conscientious, professional analysis. This is the “journalist” who tweeted shortly after last year’s election, “For a new president from reality television, a cabinet selection that resembles a pageant.”

Another New York Times article, this time appearing on page 1, accused the Trump administration of planning to take action against “affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants.” The reporter, Charlie Savage, imposed his own interpretation of an internal document that made no reference to white applicants. It called for “investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions.” Savage jumped to a conclusion that would support the leftist media’s portrayal of the Trump administration as white supremacist when in fact the Trump Justice Department has shown interest in a case involving possible discrimination against Asian-Americans at Harvard University.

The New York Times all but conceded the institutional anti-Trump bias that permeates its news coverage of the Trump administration when it fired its sole conscience at the paper last spring, its Public Editor Liz Spayd. Ms. Spayd, who had been on the job less than a year when she was fired, committed the unpardonable sin of speaking truth to power. She pointed to evidence of Times reporters’ bias against President Trump in their tweets, which she said were “outrageous” and “over the line” and should face “some kind of consequence.” She sinned even more against the Trump-hating leftist media orthodoxy by voicing some of her complaints on Fox News.

As Liz Spayd wrote in her final Public Editor column, “Whether journalists realize it or not, with impartiality comes authority — and right now it’s in short supply.” She asked rhetorically whether, in its efforts to hold the Trump administration accountable, the New York Times would “make reckless decisions and draw premature conclusions.” She asked “who will be watching, on this subject or anything else, if they don’t acquit themselves well?”

Following the purge of Ms. Spayd and the elimination of her Public Editor position, it will be left to outside institutions such as Project Veritas to keep watch.

Joseph Klein

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/268104/new-york-times-destroy-trump-agenda-exposed-joseph-klein

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Bring Down Leftist Foundations Like the Mafia - Daniel Greenfield




by Daniel Greenfield


Prosecute Soros and Ford for funding leftist violence.



Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

The Department of Justice has been investigating DisruptJ20, a "resistance" group that plotted to shut down President Trump's inauguration. The DOJ has demanded the IP addresses of visitors, along with any emails, photos and names it can get. But the pipeline of Dj20 funding goes back to George Soros.

And not just Soros.

Money from the Global Justice Alliance went to Refuse Fascism, a group founded by members of the Revolutionary Communist Party, which staged violent protests. “Respectable” big money leftist groups like the Hill Snowdon Foundation and Ben and Jerry’s Foundation fund middlemen like the Alliance. And then the Alliance funds “direct action” groups that are willing to get their hands violently dirty.

The DOJ, better than anyone, should understand this model. It’s commonplace among criminals.

And when you go after criminals, you don’t stop with the street thugs. Instead you go after the bosses. The left’s funding pipelines launder money by moving it from respectable foundations to increasingly radical groups until they reach the thugs that mace, club and set fires. The multiple tiers buy their donors respectability and plausible deniability. But it’s nothing that the DOJ can’t easily penetrate.

It’s not all that different from the Castellano era in the Gambino crime family. And it needs to be treated the same way. Fiscal sponsorship of groups that engage in street violence is a crime. Prosecute it!

The Center for Community Change Action, another "direct action" group, recently had its donors exposed. They included Soros’ Open Society Foundation, the Ford Foundation and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Approximately $7 million has gone from these big donors to the “direct action” group.

The CCCA has its own groups for which it’s acting as a “fiscal sponsor”. That’s how it works.

The Ford Foundation has become notorious for its backing of Black Lives Matter through the Black-Led Movement Fund whose goal was to raise over $100 million for the black nationalist racist hate group.

There is big money behind the street violence tearing apart America from Ferguson to Berkeley.

And there are big foundations behind the big money. The DOJ took down the big crime families. It’s time for it to take down the big leftist foundations.

Many of these foundations were born in sin. And they’ve only grown worse since.

Their bid for “campaign finance reform” shifted the axis of political finance from donations to political organizations to “outside” groups that matched their agendas. We all live in the cracks of the shadowy political system created by the Ford Foundation, George Soros, Carnegie and MacArthur. The lefty foundations spent over $100 million to make “campaign finance reform” a reality. And that gave them enormous power to control national politics through unaccountable networks and soft money.

American politics was radicalized. The left controlled the foundations and the foundations controlled politics. Democracy was replaced with oligarchy. Campaign finance was made unaccountable under the guise of campaign finance reform. The oligarchy operated under the cover of Orwellian labels like the Democracy Alliance where you can help decide how the country should be run for only $200,000.

All this is ominous enough. But the oligarchy has gone from running the country to funding street riots.

And that’s not just subversion. It’s political terrorism.

What do you call powerful and wealthy organizations that subvert the political system with massive amounts of money and then also incite street violence against an elected government?

The big foundations are a cross between criminal organizations and terrorist groups. And they must be brought down.

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?" an Elizabethan courtier sardonically observed. "Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

Crime never prospers for the same reason. If it gets big enough, it becomes government. And only Attorney General Sessions and the remaining honest Republicans in the House and Senate can stop it.

The leftist network of foundations is becoming our government. Not only did it rule us for eight years under Obama. But its response to a democratic revolution was an undemocratic counterrevolution. Its “resistance” is no more of a grass roots effort than its “campaign finance reform” bid was.

The “resistance” is the oligarchy using paid rioters to overturn the results of a democratic election.

Refuse Fascism has announced that beginning November 4, it will unleash a series of protests that, “could lead to a situation where this illegitimate regime is removed from power.”

That’s not just a bunch of failed Commies fantasizing. It’s the tip of a money iceberg that leads back to the Hill Snowdon Foundation, the Ben and Jerry’s Foundation and George Soros.

And it gets much bigger.

The Ford Foundation has $12 billion in assets. It distributes $500 to $600 million each year. The W.K. Kellogg Foundation boasts $8.6 billion in assets and around $300 million in annual spending. The MacArthur Foundation has $6.4 billion in assets and hands out $220 million a year. Soros’ Open Society has around $5 billion in assets and passes out over $400 million a year.

That’s billions of dollars being spent every year to subvert the political system and seize power.

The DOJ should deal with the individual thugs involved in violent protests. But it’s even more important to address how they are being financed and organized. And to follow the money trail back to the top.

Congress has an important role in investigating and exposing the big foundations that represent a major threat to our political system. The House Ways and Means Committee has a duty to examine what tax-exempt foundations are doing and to determine how to address their impact on our political process.

Congress tried to tackle the power of the big foundations in the fifties with the Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and the foundations ran a successful smear campaign. The Dodd Report today remains an obscure historical footnote. But the problem has become far more urgent.

The foundations have gone beyond exercising great control over education and social policy. They now exercise near total control in some of these areas. They are grappling for the real levers of power from elections to street violence. They are evolving into something like a shadow government.

Foundations with billions in assets have become self-perpetuating institutions that grow more radical with each iteration. Their vast wealth and political agendas give them great power. And that power comes with zero accountability. They have built massive networks using their wealth and power to control our political system. And they are even willing to resort to violence to undermine an election.

And that cannot be tolerated.

The foundations are highly vulnerable. Their origins, their structures, their strategies and their tax exemptions are all very legally dubious. But it will take political will in Congress and the DOJ.

Attorney General Sessions is to be commended for making it clear that street thugs rioting against President Trump and leakers at the NSC will be held accountable. But breaking up a crime ring is all about following the money. And the money trail leads right back to the big foundations.

It’s time to sunset the big, old foundations that have been around for so long that they have become shadow governments. And to open their books and prosecute any funding directed to illegal activities.

As David Horowitz laid out in Big Agenda, it’s time to take on the foundations.

The battle against the big foundations will determine whether our government is to be “of the people, by the people, for the people” or by the Ford Foundation, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and by Soros.


Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/268099/bring-down-leftist-foundations-mafia-daniel-greenfield

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

UK: Extremely Selective Free Speech - Judith Bergman




by Judith Bergman

You can go ahead and support Hezbollah in the UK, no problem. Support the far right and you can end up in jail for a decade.

  • The issue is not hate preachers visiting the UK from abroad. While banning them from campuses will leave them with fewer venues, it by no means solves the larger issue, which is that they will continue their Dawah or proselytizing elsewhere.
  • The question probably should be: Based on available evidence, are those assessments of Islam accurate? Particularly compared to current messages that seemingly are considered "conducive to the public good."
  • At around the same time as the two neo-Nazi groups were banned at the end of September 2017, Home Secretary Amber Rudd refused to ban Hezbollah's political wing in the UK. Hezbollah itself, obviously, does not distinguish between its 'political' and 'military' wings. In other words, you can go ahead and support Hezbollah in the UK, no problem. Support the far right and you can end up in jail for a decade.
Apparently, 112 events featuring extremist speakers took place on UK campuses in the academic year 2016/2017, according to a recent report by Britain's Henry Jackson society: "The vast majority of the extreme speakers recorded in this report are Islamist extremists, though one speaker has a background in Far-Right politics...." That one speaker was Tommy Robinson both of whose events were cancelled, one due to hundreds of students planning to demonstrate to protest his appearance. The report does not mention student protests at any of the Islamist events.

The topics of the Islamist speakers included:
"Dawah Training... to teach students the fundamentals of preaching to others... Western foreign policy towards the Islamic world in general... Grievances...perceived attacks on Muslims and Islam in the UK... [calling for] scrapping of Prevent and other government counter-extremism measures [critiquing] arrest and detention of terrorism suspects... [challenging] ideas such as atheism and skepticism... religious socio-economic governance, focusing on the role of religion in fields such as legislation, justice... finance... religious rulings or interpretations, religious verses or other texts, important historical or scriptural figures..."
London was the region with the highest number of events, followed by the South East, according to the report. The most prolific speakers were affiliated to the Muslim Debate Initiative, the Islamic Education and Research Academy (iERA), the Muslim Research and Development Foundation (MRDF), the Hittin Institute, Sabeel, and CAGE. Most speakers were invited by Islamic student societies, and a high proportion of the talks took place during campus events such as "Discover Islam Week", "Islam Awareness Week" and "Islamophobia Awareness Month".

One of the most prolific speakers, Hamza Tzortis, is a senior member of iERA. He has said that apostates who "fight against the community[...] should be killed" and that, "we as Muslims reject the idea of freedom of speech, and even the idea of freedom".

That so many extremist speaker events continue to take place at British universities should be cause for alarm. In March 2015, the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act (CTSA) imposed a duty on universities, among other public bodies, to pay "due regard to the need to prevent individuals from being drawn into terrorism", yet at 112 events last year, the number of extremist Islamist events on campuses have not dropped significantly. In comparison, there were 132 events in 2012, 145 events in 2013 and 123 events in 2014.

Evidence shows that the danger of becoming an actual Islamic terrorist while studying at British university campuses is also extremely real. According to one report, also by the Henry Jackson society:
"Since 1999, there have been a number of acts of Islamism-inspired terrorism... committed by students studying at a UK university at the time of their offence...there have also been a significant number of graduates from UK universities convicted of involvement in terrorism, and whom... were at least partially radicalised during their studies".
The most well known case is probably that of Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, who in 2002 was found guilty of the kidnapping and murder of journalist Daniel Pearl. He is believed to have been radicalized while studying at the London School of Economics and Political Science in the early 1990s.

While removing extremist speakers from campuses might possibly reduce the risk of radicalization, extremist speakers are readily available to talk to Muslim youths outside of campuses. The issue is not hate preachers visiting the UK from abroad. While banning them from campuses will leave them with fewer venues, it by no means solves the larger issue, which is that they will continue their dawah or proselytizing elsewhere.

What, then, have been recent responses by the British government to the issues of Islamic radicalization and terrorism?

One response has been a proposal to tighten existing law on viewing 'terrorist content' online. People who repeatedly view terrorist content online could now face up to 15 years jail, Home Secretary Amber Rudd has announced. The law will also apply to terrorists who publish information about members of the armed forces, police and intelligence services for the purposes of preparing acts of terrorism. Tightening the law around viewing terrorist material is part of the counter-terrorism strategy the government is reviewing after the increased frequency of terrorist attacks in Britain this year.


Britain's Home Secretary Amber Rudd has announced that people who repeatedly view "terrorist content" online could now face up to 15 years jail. (Image source: UK Government/Flickr)
Amber Rudd has included 'far-right propaganda' in the new law, saying:
"I want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions, face the full force of the law."
What is 'far right propaganda?' Based on previous British policies, 'far right propaganda' would likely include reading Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch or Pamela Geller's 'Geller Report'. While local hate preachers from legal Muslim organizations freely roam UK campuses, Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller were both forbidden entry to the UK in 2013 by the British Home Secretary, because their presence would "not be conducive to the public good". This is what Geller was told:
"After careful consideration...you should be excluded from the United Kingdom on the grounds that your presence here is not conducive to the public good...You have brought yourself within the scope of the list of unacceptable behaviours by making statements that may foster hatred, which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK...You co-founded Stop Islamization of America, an organization described as an anti-Muslim hate group... You are reported to have stated the following: 'Al-Qaeda is a manifestation of devout Islam ... it is Islam' [and] 'If the Jew dies, the Muslims will die as well: their survival depends on their constant jihad, because without it they will lose the meaning and purpose of their existence.' The Home Secretary considers that should you be allowed to enter the UK you would continue to espouse such views...".
The letter to Robert Spencer was in almost identical form:
"The Home Secretary notes that you are the founder of the blog Jihad Watch (a site widely criticized for being Islamophobic). You co-founded the Freedom Defense Initiative and Stop Islamization of America, both of which have been described as anti-Muslim hate groups. You are reported to have stated the following: "... it [Islam] is a religion and is a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers... for establishing a societal model that is ...incompatible with Western society..."
The question probably should be: Based on available evidence, are those assessments of Islam accurate? Particularly compared to current messages that seemingly are considered "conducive to the public good."

It is also conceivable that reading quotes from Winston Churchill's book about Islam online would be seen as 'far right' and therefore punishable by up to 15 years in jail. In 2014, Paul Weston, chairman of the Liberty GB party, was arrested on suspicion of religious/racial harassment for quoting an excerpt on Islam from Churchill's book, 'The River War' -- written in 1899 while he was a British army officer in Sudan -- in a public speech.

Another recent government response to terrorism has been to outlaw two far-right groups: Scottish Dawn and NS131, which are aliases for the group National Action, a fringe neo-Nazi group, banned in 2016. Being a member of these groups or merely supporting them is now a criminal offense that carries a sentence of up to 10 years' imprisonment. Amber Rudd said in September:
"National Action is a vile racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic group which glorifies violence and stirs up hatred... Our priority as Government will always be to maintain the safety and security of families and communities... we will continue to identify and ban any terrorist group which threatens this, whatever their ideology".
Apparently, however, to paraphrase George Orwell, some terrorist groups "are more equal than others." Amber Rudd recently refused to ban the political wing of Hezbollah, an equally racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic group that has actually committed terror attacks all over the world, as opposed to the banned neo-Nazi groups. Banning Hezbollah's political wing would have closed a legal loophole that allows demonstrations in support of the political wing of Hezbollah, while its military wing is banned in the UK. Hezbollah itself, obviously, does not distinguish between its 'political' and 'military' wings.

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, had written to Amber Rudd asking her to close the legal loophole after Jewish groups pleaded with him to stop a large Al Quds day march, which nevertheless took place in London in June 2017 and featured Hezbollah flags. While the British government decided that supporters of fringe neo-Nazi groups should be jailed for up to 10 years, it apparently thought that supporting Hezbollah is just fine. In response to Khan, Amber Rudd wrote :
"The group that reportedly organised the parade, the Islamic Human Rights Commission, is not a proscribed terrorist organisation. This means they can express their views and demonstrate, provided that they do so within the law. The flag for the organisation's military wing is the same as the flag for its political wing. Therefore, for it to be an offence under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000, for an individual to display the Hizballah flag, the context and manner in which the flag is displayed must demonstrate that it is specifically in support of the proscribed elements of the group",
In other words, you can go ahead and support Hezbollah in the UK, no problem. Support the far right and you can end up in jail for a decade. Evidently, free speech in the UK has become extremely selective.

Judith Bergman is a columnist, lawyer and political analyst.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11130/uk-free-speech

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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