Saturday, November 22, 2014

Deterioration of Human Rights in Iran - Kaveh Taheri

by Kaveh Taheri

If Iran is able to have nuclear-tipped missiles pointing at Berlin, Paris and London, it would not even have to use them. The threat would be enough.
Even more disturbing is that many people inside Iran have alerted the U.S. Administration for over three years about more — other — nuclear facilities secretly being built in Iran; these have not been declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
If you want the government to control your internet, you can move to China.

Kaveh Taheri: What, in your opinion, is the cause of the surge in executions and arrests in Iran?

Shabnam Assadollahi: The executions seem to be politically motivated. According to data gathered by the United Nations, Iranian officials have pushed for the execution of those they see as a threat to their system. Iran's president, Hassan Rouhani's, promises of bringing "dignity" and hope to the nation, freeing political prisoners, promoting civil rights, and bringing moderation for Iranians, were broken almost immediately upon his taking office. 
Not only have the promises made by Rouhani to the UNHCR never been kept, but since Rouhani took office last August 2013, executions, persecution and human rights violations have significantly increased. According to the Latest report by Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, the UN human rights rapporteur, ever since Rouhani became the president of Iran, the surge in executions has given Iran the world's highest death penalty rate per capita. Dr. Shaheed reports that at least 852 individuals, including eight juveniles, were executed since June of last year. "He (Rouhani) is unable to address the issues, unable to arrest this trend, to convert his promises which spoke to arresting this trend into action," Shaheed said.

Shaheed also expressed alarm about the pretexts for executions in Iran. "We have seen a person executed for making a donation to a foreign organization." The surge in executions shows that Rouhani has failed to deliver on campaign promises to improve the human rights situation in his country, a year after taking office.

Shaheed also said that has been "shocked" by the hanging of 26-year-old Reyhaneh Jabbari, convicted of murdering a former intelligence officer she said had tried to sexually assault her. Shaheed said that he had repeatedly raised with Tehran questions about the fairness of her trial.

While the international community is focused on getting nuclear deals with Iran, it is easy to ignore the fact that Iran is also one of the world's worst human rights violators. When the constitution of a country and the law of the land are based on Sharia and Islamic law, inequality between men and women, Retribution Law, execution for being enemy of God (Mohareb), death by hanging, there is little hope of anyone condemning these acts.[1]

Since Hassan Rouhani (right) became the president of Iran, the surge in executions has given Iran the world's highest death penalty rate per capita.

Taheri: In what ways do you feel that the international community and the West could facilitate improvement of the human rights situation in Iran?

Assadollahi: After Rouhani became President of Iran, the U.S administration of President Obama, and the EU, under the pretext of diplomacy, took advantage of just engaging in "negotiations" to bring economic advantages to all three parties. The U.S. and private Western businesses, as well as the regime of Iran, took advantage of sanctions loosened by the U.S. to sell to the freshly-opened market. And Iran, absolved of sanctions, kept developing the nuclear program and increasing centrifuges as well as receiving billions of dollars.[2]

As for the West, when the Iranian regime accelerated its nuclear program, people went the usual route, from being concerned to being indifferent to being complicit. The U.S. did not bring up the issue of human rights -- or even releasing innocent prisoners.

The West seems so desperately eager to give Iran nuclear capability -- perhaps from the pressure of business lobbies and perhaps out of Obama's panic-stricken need for a "legacy." What Obama does not realize is that if he does let Iran acquire nuclear capability, his "legacy" will be just like that of Britain's Neville Chamberlain -- a laughing-stock, who held up a piece of paper he thought assured peace with Hitler.

The U.S. and West should not accept any compromise on shutting down Iran's nuclear-weapons program. It should not allow Iran any opportunity to blackmail the West into a compromise on the pretext of Iran "helping" to fight the Islamic State [IS]. United States Secretary of State John Kerry, cordially invited Iran to play a role in arresting the momentum of IS in Iraq and Syria: "There is a role for nearly every country in the world in turning back the militants and debunking their ideology, including Iran," he said.[3] But Iran's leaders, who are Shiite, would be happy to fight ISIS, who are Sunni, anyway. Or, even better, let the West fight ISIS for them.

If Iran's regime, with its open record of duplicity, continues to be appeased by the Obama Administration and the P5 + 1, any "deal" will only destabilize the Middle East -- and the West, as country after country will also feel obligated to acquire nuclear weapons. Ironically, Iran's nuclear weapons would also be used strengthen the very terrorist jihadist groups Iran has been funding all along – the ones the West is supposedly trying to counter. And if Iran is able to have nuclear-tipped missiles pointing at Berlin, Paris and London, it would not even have to use them. The threat would be enough.

The responsibility for disastrous results from any negotiations will lie at the feet of the P5 + 1 (the five permanent member of the UN Security Council plus Iran) in general, and U.S. President Barack Obama in particular. Another nail in the coffin of his totally failed foreign-policy legacy, starting with his embarrassing "reset" button with Vladimir Putin, a former member of the Soviet Union's secret police (the KGB), then his even more embarrassing promise of "more flexibility" with Medvedev.

Taheri: Do you think that the sanctions are effective against the Iranian regime, and will they help improve the human rights situation in Iran? Or are they just hurting the people?

Assadollahi: The Iranian regime together with its lobbyists and apologists, such as the National Iranian American Council [NIAC] in the U.S., continue their attempts to influence the Obama Administration to relieve sanctions and permit concessions to allow Iran to acquire its nuclear capability. Negotiations keep being delayed, foiled and extended by Iran, no doubt to run out the clock while it finishes acquiring nuclear capability. Concessions -- including billions of dollars in sanctions relief -- keep being given by the P5 + 1, for what?

To Iran's supreme leader, Seyed Ali Khamenei, this burlesque just makes Obama and his administration look weaker by the day. And each concession only reinforces that perception.

Even more disturbing is that many people inside Iran have alerted the U.S. Administration for over three years about more — other -- industrial facilities secretly being built in Iran; these have not been declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

So far, all the intelligence provided from within Iran has been willfully ignored by the Obama Administration. At this point, it is not possible to believe that this information is being ignored out of ignorance. That leaves the West's motivation about being so accommodating to Iran pointing to one conclusion: the successful influence of Iran's pro-nuclear lobbyists, whatever that might have entailed, combined with commercial interests exerted by individuals or companies already counting the millions they will gain from doing business with Iran.

Iran's human rights atrocities are being fanatically ignored by the Obama administration in favor of sitting down at the negotiating table with those who are causing them. The U.S. does not seem to realize, as the former Soviet dissident, Natan Sharansky said, that a country that does not treat its own citizens well will probably not treat is neighbors well, either.[4]

On November 5, 2014, Kerry stated that, "It's easy to prove to the world Iran's nuclear plan is peaceful." No, Iran's nuclear plan is not peaceful. You do not need centrifuges and enriched uranium for peaceful nuclear energy. This is another of the Obama Administration's lies, from "You can keep your doctor, healthcare plan, it will cost less, not a smidgen of corruption;" the Benghazi movie, the IRS, and now his apparent bid to control the internet through the FCC. If you want the government to control your internet, you can move to China.

The regime of Iran needs to know that the international community is serious and Iran's human rights abuses will not go unnoticed. But clearly the P5+1 are not serious. They eliminated the only non-military means of inducing the Iranian regime honor its international obligations: they lifted the sanctions.

As the Honorable John Baird, Canada's minister of Foreign Affairs stated,[5]
"All who have long despaired about the Iranian regime, want to believe that Iran is genuinely committed to positive change. But we do not have the luxury of being naive, nor do the Iranian people, who have suffered for far too long under the regime's nuclear ambitions. Human rights, particularly executions, are actually getting worse under his watch and at the hands of Iran's so-called Minister of Murder. Kind words, a smile and a charm offensive are not a substitute for real action, nor are they an effective mask to disguise the old hatred. That's why I'm deeply skeptical about Iran's intentions. Until we are given real reasons to trust their words, Canadian sanctions will remain in full force. I believe there remains a strategic problem with the very nature and conduct of this belligerent regime—a regime that oppresses with terror at home and sponsors it abroad. And until the Supreme Leader's words and actions produce the human rights that the Iranian people deserve, or until he ceases his sponsorship of terrorism abroad in Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere, Canada will remain skeptical of the regime's intentions."
Taheri: What is your perspective on future U.S. negotiations with Iran and on human rights, as a result of the recent election victory by the Republicans, who now hold the majority of seats in both the House and Senate?

Assadollahi: I am a Canadian citizen and live in Canada, but I closely follow the U.S. policy in Iran and the Middle East. But in the U.S., Republicans and the Iranian-American community have been extremely helpful in bringing Iran's horrific human rights record to the forefront. Senators Mark Kirk and Marco Rubio introduced Iran Human Rights Accountability Act of 2014, not only to crack down on Iranian human rights abusers including Khamenei and President Rouhani, but also to support the Iranian people's hopes one day to have a democracy.

What does the P5+1's desperation to get a nuclear deal "at all costs" say to the modern-day Iranians rotting in Evin prison? Or to the young social-media generation who took to the streets in 2009 after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's fraudulent re-election? President Obama left these Iranians questioning — apparently correctly — the United States of America's commitment to their cause.

Taheri: Finally, how do you foresee the future prognosis for improved human rights in Iran?

Assadollahi: The Islamic Republic of Iran continues to arrest journalists, members of student organizations and labor unions, lawyers defending dissidents, members of minority faiths and cultural groups, and civil rights activists. Iran ranks second only to China in number of executions. In the execution of juveniles, it leads the world. Gender discrimination continues to deny women educational, legal and professional opportunities. Public events, such as sports matches, remain segregated.[5]

The permanent and peaceful solution to this crisis is something that only Iran's democrats -- now being silently murdered in the Iran's prisons -- along with the help of the free world, can change. We just saw in the U.S. how tired they are of being lied to by government operatives who call them "stupid." Together, they can and will bring human rights back as a crucial value. When human rights are denied in one place, they can soon be denied every place.
Shabnam Assadollahi is a Canadian expert on human rights, who has worked extensively helping newcomers and refugees resettle in Canada, and has distinguished herself as a broadcaster, writer and public speaker. While her primary interest focuses on the Iranian community and world events effecting women and minority communities in the land of her birth – she also advocates for the emancipation of women and minority religious communities worldwide. A resident of Ottawa, she is active in community affairs including cultural, educational and humanitarian activities.
Kaveh Taheri is a journalist specializing in human rights.

[1] Qanon-e Ta'zir (Discretionary Punishment Law). Ta'zir laws dealt not only with criminal law but this law gave judges the authority to execute and imprison those found guilty of crimes such as "declaring war on God" (equivalent to treason/terrorism) and "plotting with foreign powers." It also gave them the power to sentence as many as 74 lashes to those who "insult government officials," "convene unlawful meetings," sell alcoholic beverages, fix prices, hoard goods, kiss illicitly, fail to wear the proper hijab, and 'lie to the authorities."
Qanon-e Qisas (Retribution Law) This law codified other aspects of the sharia. It subdivided crimes into hadd - those against God - and those against fellow beings, especially other families. Some punishments are mandatory; others, discretionary. "Based on the notion of lex talionis, the Qisas Law calls for 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life', unless the victim or his/her family forgive the perpetrator, and/or accept compensation for the death/injury (blood money). In 1991-1994, Iran combined all of these laws into the unified "Islamic Penal Code".
[2] India and China Ignore US Sanctions Against Iran; Iran; USA Secret Talks Nuclear Deal Talks; Iranian Nuke Deal an Islamist Victory; Iran's State Media Agency, Iran's State media agency Press TV Reports that France BNP Paribas accused by US of ignoring Iran Sanctions
[3] September 20, 2014
[4] The Case for Democracy by Natan Sharansky.
[5] May 2014.
[6] Reports on Iran's Human Rights Violations by Iran Human Rights (IHR); Chart of Executions by The Islamic Republic of Iran-2014

Kaveh Taheri


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

Obama Helps Terror Go Nuclear - Noah Beck

by Noah Beck

Last Tuesday’s terror attack on a Jerusalem synagogue killed five people: four rabbis (including three born in the USA) and a Druze police officer. Two Palestinians entered during morning prayers and attacked worshipers with knives, meat cleavers, and a handgun. Congress showed moral clarity when blaming the horrors on Hamas and Palestinian Authority incitement, but Obama’s statements were perfunctorily “balanced.” Obama warned of a “spiral” of violence – an obtuse refrain of those suggesting moral equivalency between terrorism and the fight against it. Obama also misleadingly claimed that “President Abbas…strongly condemned the attacks” omitting that Abbas did so only after pressure from the administration and with equivocation (Abbas suggested a link between recent terrorism and visits by Jews to the Temple Mount, as if to justify the attacks). It’s also worth noting that Palestinians celebrated the massacre (as they did after the 2013 Boston bombing and the 9/11 attacks).

Obama’s weak reaction is consistent with his mostly impotent response to ISIS terrorists who behead Americans and Mideast Christians and grow their Islamist empire by the day. Frighteningly, his approach to Iranian nukes follows the same meek pattern, but the stakes are exponentially higher, because when Iran goes nuclear, so does terrorism.

Iran is already the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, without nuclear weapons. Iran-supported Hamas has already tried to commit nuclear terror: last summer, Hamas launched rockets at Israel’s Dimona nuclear reactor. How much more dangerous will Iran become when it has nukes? Even if Iran doesn’t directly commit nuclear terrorism, an Iranian nuclear umbrella will embolden the regime and the terrorist organizations it sponsors.

Obama has a long record of weakness towards Iran. In 2009, when Iran’s Basij paramilitary force brutalized demonstrators protesting Iran’s fraudulent presidential election, Obama kept his response irrelevantly mild for the sake of “engaging” Iran. That surely helped Iranian voters understand the risks of protesting the “free” election of 2012 (involving eight regime-picked candidates). It was indeed a very orderly rubberstamp.

In 2011, when a U.S. drone went down on Iranian soil, Obama cordially requested it back. The regime recently scoffed at such impotence by showcasing its knock-off based on that drone and some U.S.-made helicopters that it purchased, highlighting just how useless sanctions have become.

President Hassan Rouhani’s election vastly improved the public face of Iran’s nuclear program, and Obama was charmed too. Obama has been unilaterally weakening the sanctions against Iran by not enforcing them. He has threatened to thwart any Congressional attempt to limit his nuclear generosity by simply lifting sanctions without Congressional approval. Yet despite these concessions and Rouhani’s smiles, human rights abuses in Iran have actually worsened.

Obama declared in 2012 (while running for reelection) that he doesn’t bluff when it comes to stopping Iranian nukes, and that containment was not an option, unlike military force. But the credibility of that statement collapsed after Obama shrunk away from his “red line” against Syrian chemical weapons use. In 2013, Basher Assad gassed his own people and Obama took no military action. So if Obama cowers against a disintegrating state, what are the chances that he’ll militarily prevent Iranian nukes?

And Obama has dangerously undermined the only military threat to Iranian nukes that anyone still takes seriously: Israel. On the Iranian nuclear issue, Obama has isolated Israel on how close Iran is to a nuclear capability with estimates that are far laxer. And as long as Obama continues negotiating (even if Iran is clearly playing for time as the U.S. offers ever more desperate proposals) or reaches a deal allowing Iran to become a threshold nuclear weapons state, an Israeli military option to defang Iranian nukes appears less legitimate.

The media’s anti-Israel bias is well known (they can’t even get a simple story about vehicular terrorism against Israelis correct (compare how The Guardian writes accurate headlines when Canada suffers an Islamist car attack but not when Israel does). So if Obama accepts Iran’s nuclear program and Israel then attacks it, the media will be even harsher on Israel (even though the world will be silently relieved, if Israeli courage succeeds at neutralizing what scared everyone else).

Downgrading US-Israel relations seems to be part of Obama’s d├ętente with Iran. Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei recently tweeted his plan for destroying Israel, but Obama grows even more determined to reach an accord that legitimizes Iran’s nuclear program. And the Obama administration’s diplomatic abuse of America’s closest Mideast ally is unprecedented – from his humiliation of Prime Minister Netanyahu in 2010, to Secretary of State John Kerry’s betrayal of Israel during Operation Protective Edge, to calling Netanyahu a “chickenshit” a few weeks ago, without even apologizing later (note the irony of calling Netanyahu a coward anonymously). Obama seems far more concerned by Israeli construction of apartments in Jerusalem than a nuclear Iran. And he has been pressuring Israel to retreat from more disputed territory, effectively rewarding Palestinians for launching the third missile war against Israel from Gaza in five years last summer and now the third Intifidah inside Israel in 17 years. That puts Obama just behind the European appeasers who think Palestinian bellicosity merits statehood. They all naively think — at Israel’s peril — that peace is possible with raw hatred.

Obama indeed appears desperate to get a nuclear accord with Iran at any price. He has written letters asking for Iran’s help against ISIS after they hinted at an ISIS-for-nukes exchange, and has pursued an agreement at all costs. Obama’s top aide, Ben Rhodes, was caught saying how a nuclear accord is as important to Obama as “healthcare”; at least there’s a fitting slogan to sell the deal to Americans: “If you like your nukes, you can keep them.”

Russia, the serial spoiler, suggested extending nuclear talks past the November 24th deadline. Iran will undoubtedly agree to more enrichment time (while it keeps stonewalling the IAEA’s investigations into it nukes), as it did last July. For Obama, a bad agreement or an extension looks far better than concluding that talks have failed and issuing more empty threats to stop Iran militarily. And so U.S. foreign policy will continue its freefall, as the world’s bad actors will want to see what they can extort from a leader even weaker than President Carter. While Carter permitted Iran to hold 52 American diplomats and citizens hostage for 444 days, Obama may allow Iran to hold the world hostage with nuclear terrorism. It’s now dreadfully obvious: without massive public pressure, Obama will help Iran get nukes; anyone concerned about nuclear terrorism should sign this petition:

Noah Beck is the author of The Last Israelis, a doomsday thriller about the Iranian nuclear threat and current geopolitical issues in the Middle East.


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

To Amnesty 5 Million - Matthew Vadum

by Matthew Vadum

President Obama Delivers Remarks On Executive Action Immigration ReformIgnoring the brutal, historic slap-down angry American voters gave his party this month, President Obama unveiled plans for a unilaterally imposed amnesty that will shield an estimated 5 million illegal aliens from deportation.

Whether Republicans, now in possession of a thunderous mandate to fight Obama tooth and nail, will fight this despotic usurpation of the lawmaking powers of Congress remains to be seen.

Obama doesn’t care. He is pressing on, hoping to fill America with millions of new Democrat voters. And he’s going to kill American jobs in the process.

“We expect people who live in this country to play by the rules,” said the president. The address from the White House came yesterday, which just so happened to be Revolution Day (also known as Civil War Day) in Mexico.

“We expect those who cut the line will not be unfairly rewarded,” the president continued. Yet Obama went on to propose just such a reward in the form of a special “deal” for unlawful immigrants:
So we’re going to offer the following deal: If you’ve with been in America more than five years. If you have children who are American citizens or illegal residents. If you register, pass a criminal background check and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes, you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily without fear of deportation. You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. That’s what this deal is.
Strangely, Obama, who routinely flouts the Constitution, still acknowledges some limits to his power. The deal, he said, does not apply to recently arrived illegal aliens or illegals who have yet to sneak into the country.

“It does not grant citizenship or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive,” Obama said. “Only Congress can do that. All we’re saying is we’re not going to deport you.”

Whether the benefits illegal aliens receive are as generous as benefits that citizens receive is beside the point. Illegal aliens are already eligible for extensive benefits from the government and Obama is a big believer in getting poor people addicted to welfare. No serious person believes illegals won’t have access to social programs.

In the address Obama played semantic games. What he’s doing is not an amnesty, he said:
Amnesty is the immigration system we have today. Millions of people who live here without paying their taxes or playing by the rules, while politicians use the issue to scare people and whip up votes at election time. That’s the real amnesty, leaving this broken system the way it is. Mass amnesty would be unfair.
The former part-time adjunct constitutional law lecturer has it wrong. A failure to enforce a law isn’t tantamount to amnesty. Amnesty is an official governmental act of forgiveness that excuses a violation of the law. Being in a state of legal limbo in which law enforcement hasn’t yet called your number isn’t the same as amnesty.

Nor is the immigration system broken, at least not in the way Obama means.

When progressives say the system is broken, they mean it is functioning in a less than optimal manner, failing to capture every single prospective illegal alien available to wade across the Rio Grande or walk across the nation’s largely undefended border with Mexico. To them, immigration policy is a taxpayer-subsidized get-out-the-vote scheme for Democrats and the best reform they could imagine would be to abolish America’s borders altogether. Obama’s new amnesty plan is a step in this direction.

It is also a profoundly cynical move that rewards lawbreaking and begets future immigration amnesties. It will spell electoral death for the Republican Party in coming years because Latinos, who are believed to comprise the bulk of the illegals, have traditionally shown a strong preference for the Democratic Party and its left-of-center public policies. The amnesty for 5 million illegals is likely just the beginning. The government recently issued a procurement order seeking a contractor to make as many as 34 million immigration documents over the coming five years.

During his address, Obama quoted the Book of Exodus, saying:
Scripture tells us that we shall not oppress a stranger, for we know the heart of a stranger — we were strangers once, too. My fellow Americans, we are and always will be a nation of immigrants. We were strangers once, too.
But the immigrants in question are not the legal immigrants of the past who followed the rules when they came to this country. They are invaders who broke the law and who continue to break the law by being here. America is not, nor has it ever been, a nation of illegal immigrants.

To qualify for relief from deportation, individuals will have to register with the government, pass criminal and national security background checks, pay their taxes, and pay a processing fee, according to a White House handout. Applications can’t be filed until early next year.

Parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents as of the date of the announcement are eligible, provided that they are not “enforcement priorities” and have been present in the U.S. since Jan. 1, 2010. Also eligible are individuals who arrived in this country before Jan. 1, 2010 and before turning 16 years old, regardless of how old they are now. Processing times for certain categories of green card applicants will be accelerated. Recent arrivals who entered the country after Jan. 1 of this year will not be eligible to apply.

Obama lapdogs were ecstatic about the planned amnesty.

Echoing Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) who absurdly compared Obama’s executive order to the Emancipation Proclamation, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) asked, “Does the public know that the Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order?”

Except that the Emancipation Proclamation freed categories of slaves, innocent people victimized by an abhorrent institution, not illegal aliens who took it upon themselves to invade the country and abuse the goodwill of Americans. The only thing the two executive orders have in common is that a president signed them.

Republicans are deeply split on the amnesty issue so anyone expecting Republican lawmakers to give Obama a well-deserved rhetorical mauling two weeks after the GOP crushed Democrats in midterm elections will be disappointed in coming days. That’s not what the emasculated party of Lincoln does because it is terrified of being called racist for opposing the nation’s first (half) black president.

Despite running a virtually content-free campaign, on Nov. 4 the GOP flipped control of the 100-seat U.S. Senate, winning at least 53 seats as of this writing. The House GOP increased its majority, winning at least 244 out of 435 seats. In the new year Republicans will control at least 31 state governors’ mansions and at least 68 of the 99 state legislative chambers across the country (Nebraska’s legislature has only one chamber). In at least 23 states Republicans will control the governorship and both houses of the state legislature. Democrats can make the same claim about only 7 states.

The election was arguably, depending on the psephological metrics used, the worst showing for the Democratic Party in its history.

Despite the newly enfeebled status of the Democrats, the House GOP’s response was predictably weak. Instead of righteously inveighing against the grave threat that Obama’s actions pose to the republic, on Twitter the official House Republican feed meekly exhorted the president to cooperate with them.

“We need a real fix, not a quick fix. Let’s fix our broken immigration system together,” read one GOP tweet. Another said, “Mr. President, stop acting alone. Let’s work together.” Maybe the GOP’s communications professionals would like to roast some s’mores and sing Kumbaya with the president.

And Obama must be quaking in his jackboots. Even after six years of getting beaten to a pulp, constantly sucker-punched by the nation’s Alinskyite president, congressional Republicans still aren’t anywhere close to grasping what he really is. They continue to treat Obama as if he’s a legitimate, sincere president who actually wants to do what’s best for America. They foolishly believe Obama cares about his falling public approval numbers and his presidential legacy. They refuse to acknowledge that he is a radical revolutionary figure hellbent on destroying, or in his own words, fundamentally transforming, the U.S. They actually seem to think Obama is interested in negotiating with them to find policy solutions that benefit the country. Many elected GOPers appear not to have an inkling that embracing amnesty is the same as signing a death warrant for the Republican Party.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who supports amnesty in principle but is under intense pressure from conservative lawmakers, is trying to put down a rebellion in his own House GOP conference. Although Obama has previously protested that he is not a king or an emperor, “he’s sure acting like one,” Boehner, who may face a challenge to his speakership in January, said yesterday.
Incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was characteristically vague.

“If President Obama acts in defiance of the people and imposes his will on the country, Congress will act,” he said.

Retiring Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) told USA Today earlier this week that Obama’s amnesty could spark civil unrest. “The country’s going to go nuts, because they’re going to see it as a move outside the authority of the president, and it’s going to be a very serious situation.”

“You’re going to see — hopefully not — but you could see instances of anarchy … You could see violence,” Coburn said. Obama will be behaving like “an autocratic leader that’s going to disregard what the Constitution says and make law anyway.”

“Instead of having the rule of law handling in our country today, now we’re starting to have the rule of rulers, and that’s the total antithesis of what this country was founded on,” he said. “Here’s how people think: Well, if the law doesn’t apply to the president … then why should it apply to me?”
House Appropriations Committee chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) appears to have taken the wrong lesson from the electoral bloodbath this month that set Democrats back 150 years. Although voters delivered the message that they want Obama stopped, Rogers interprets the election as a mandate for surrender.

“I believe a major consequence of this election is a loud and clear mandate from the American people for Washington to stop the gridlock, work together across ideological lines and start producing real accomplishments on their behalf,” Rogers wrote in an op-ed.

Rogers wants Congress to pass a long-term funding bill called an omnibus appropriations bill before the government’s authority to spend money expires on Dec. 11. It would keep the government operating for the rest of the federal fiscal year which runs to Sept. 30, 2015.

There will be “an extraordinary amount of work to do when the new Congress convenes in January … but there simply won’t be the political bandwidth available to address these pressing issues if Congress is bogged down in old battles and protracted to-do lists.”

Some Republicans have proposed defunding the parts of the government that would process amnesty-related paperwork.

Separately, Rogers has made the absurd suggestion that Congress approve a big, all-encompassing spending bill now and then rescind amnesty-relating funding next year. Rescissions happen but they’re relatively rare. Why bother giving Obama a green light to proceed with the amnesty now in the hope of slamming on the brakes in the new year?

The real problem with enacting an omnibus spending bill, according to Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, is that such a funding measure “would enable Obama to complete his lawless amnesty scheme.”

Rogers insists that the amnesty cannot be stopped through the appropriations process.

It would be “impossible to defund President Obama’s executive order through a government spending bill,” House Appropriations Committee spokeswoman Jennifer Hing said yesterday, explaining that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is funded by user fees.

It is a facile, easily disproved argument. USCIS, an agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is part of the federal government. It was created by Congress and Congress can do anything it wants to it. It can give it money, take money away from it, give it a spanking, or order it to stand on one leg and bark like a dog.

In a development overshadowed by the unveiling of the amnesty, DHS announced yesterday that it will grant “temporary protected status” to up to 8,000 people from the Ebola-afflicted African countries of Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone. These visitors may apply for work permits for 18 months. Unlike ordinary recipients of temporary protected status, these Ebola refugees will not be allowed to travel to their home countries and then return to the U.S., in order to prevent the spread of Ebola.

Or so the story goes. If Obama can find a way to let them stay in the U.S., he’ll do it.

Matthew Vadum is an award-winning investigative reporter and the author of the book, "Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers."


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

Giving thanks to a brave congresswoman whose life is now in danger - Carol Brown

by Carol Brown

When the new Congress is sworn in next year, Michele Bachmann will no longer be serving. And it will be a major loss to America.

Bachmann has been a rare and nearly lone voice sounding the alarm about the threat of Islam and about government infiltration by the Muslim Brotherhood.

And for speaking the sobering truth, she has been mocked, ridiculed, dismissed, and/or ignored. Not just by those on the left, but by those on the right, as well.

In honor of Congresswoman Bachmann, I’ve selected a few interviews and articles that highlight her courageous voice.

Here is an excerpt from a 2012 interview with Glenn Beck:
CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN:  … After the Fort Hood tragedy, a report was issued that said the real problem in our government is that we are not teaching FBI agents or our military to recognize radical Islam … in response to that … over 50 Muslim organizations wrote a letter requesting that the White House start a task force to stop that from happening.  Five days after the White House got this letter … they started the purge of the federal government.  Let me tell you, the federal government doesn’t do anything in five days.  But they started the purge of the FBI … This is serious.  This is also happening throughout our United States military, Department of Justice, and Homeland Security.  And the word “purge” isn’t my word.  That’s the word used by the 50 Muslim organizations.  They demanded that the president purge the training materials and the trainers.  And so already people have been fired who formerly were teaching what radical Islam is.  They’ve been fired or they’ve been reassigned.  And they ask that the library be purged.  Americans don’t purge libraries, but they demanded that the FBI’s library be purged.  All of this was happening and so we wrote a letter to the inspectors general asking the question:  Don’t you think you should look into the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood and what it is they’re seeking to do.
GLENN:  Okay.  So you write this, which is your job.
GLENN:  Your duty to protect and defend the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN:  That’s right. (snip) They call for the demise of Israel and the demise of the United States.  They believe in civilization jihad, which is to come into the United States and subvert the United States from within…. (snip)
… the attack machine has been turned on myself and the other members of Congress who have been asking the questions, that somehow we’re the Muslim haters, we’re the witch‑hunters, we’re the new Joe McCarthyites because we’re asking these questions.  All the while two weeks ago the Obama administration breaks federal law to bring someone that we list on the State Department as a terrorist organization, a member of that terrorist organization, we bring him into the White House?  You don’t get any higher when it comes to intelligence secrets, you don’t get any higher than the National Security Council.  He sits down with the National Security Council in our White House and has the guts to demand that we release one of the worst, most violent terrorists that we have behind bars.  He wants us to let him out of prison, to let him go free, the guy who was the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the blind sheikh.
GLENN:  So let’s ‑‑
CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN:  And you don’t hear a peep about this.
GLENN:  No, of course not.  Let me ‑‑ let me take you here because one of the more controversial things is you say Anthony Weiner’s wife will is ‑‑ has connections to the Muslim Brotherhood.  Now, this is important because she works for Hillary Clinton.
CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN:  She is the chief aide for the … Secretary of State … her late father … was a part of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Her brother was a part of the Muslim Brotherhood, and her mother was a part of what’s called the Muslim Sisterhood … we have requirements to get a high level security clearance.  One thing that the government looks at are your associations, and in particular your family associations.  And this applies to everyone.  It would be the same that is true with me.  If my family members were associated with Hamas, a terrorist organization, that alone could be sufficient to disqualify me from getting a security clearance.  So all we did is ask, did the federal government look into her family associations before she got a high level security clearance.
As Andrew McCarthy wrote in July of 2012 when all of this was unfolding: “Michele Bachmann has every right to ask questions.”

I would take it a step further and say that Michele Bachmann and every single member of Congress not only has the right, but the responsibility to ask such questions. Shockingly, most have abandoned their primary oath of office. The left seems complicit with the enemy and the right seems clueless, save a few special representatives. Michele Bachmann has been a leading voice among this painfully small group.

Here is another example of her strong voice: A 2012 editorial published in the Star Tribune:
…while I am working tirelessly every day to promote progrowth policies so Minnesota's small businesses will once again invest and hire new workers, I cannot ignore the national-security threats facing our nation.
In a recent interview, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair said "the West is asleep on the issue of Islamist extremism."
Sadly, he's right. The panic-stricken reaction to the letters that four of my congressional colleagues and I recently wrote to the Inspectors General of five government agencies, asking them to simply investigate the premise of our concerns, is an illustration of exactly how unwary many of our leaders are here in the United States.
Whatever the reasons for it, Washington's political and media establishment fears an honest discussion about the real threat to this country posed by radical Islam. They are reluctant to initiate an honest assessment as to whether the Obama administration has subordinated national security to political correctness.
Our letters asked a set of important questions -- based upon publicly available information -- about the Obama administration's policy concerning radical Islam.
Consider these examples.
• A two-year study by the FBI on the Fort Hood shooting concluded that intelligence officials knew that Maj. Nidal Hassan was communicating with terrorist leader Anwar al-Awlaki. These officials nevertheless refused to launch an investigation out of fear of being labeled insensitive or bigoted. Fourteen Americans, including an unborn child, were murdered because political correctness inhibited efforts that might have prevented their murder by a radical Islamist. We want to know why.
• Last month, the State Department granted a visa -- in violation of federal law -- to a member of an U.S.-designated Egyptian terrorist group. This terror group member, Hani Nour Eldin, was then welcomed into the White House to meet with National Security Council officials, where he proceeded to lobby for the release of the "Blind Sheikh," Omar Abdel Rahman, who is serving a life sentence for his involvement in terror plots, including the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. We want to know why.
• The U.S. State Department organized a Global Counterterrorism Forum and invited 29 countries to take part. But it excluded Israel, the country that is arguably under the greatest threat of terrorist attack. We want to know why.
While we remain dangerously asleep here at home about domestic threats from radical Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Islamist groups are abundantly clear about their desire to destroy America and her allies.
During the 2007-08 Holy Land Foundation trial -- the largest terror finance trial in U.S. history -- the federal government established in court that the Muslim Brotherhood's mission in the United States is "destroying Western civilization from within." The mastermind of the 9/11 attack, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, had significant documented ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Despite these alarming truths about the Muslim Brotherhood, the Obama administration has embraced the group at nearly every turn, starting with President Obama's 2009 speech in Cairo. Against the wishes of the Mubarak government, President Obama invited banned Muslim Brotherhood leaders to attend his speech. (snip)
It is my duty as a member of Congress to ask why the Obama administration has repeatedly undermined America's national security and bows to political correctness on issues related to radical Islam. The safety and security of every person in my district, as well as all Americans, is of preeminent importance and concern to me.
The Washington establishment has two choices: It can either remain asleep about the threat of radical Islam, or it can do everything possible to rally the country to a defense and preservation of American values and our way of life. We owe that to the American people.
In early 2103, shortly after Bachmann began to speak out on these urgent concerns, she was overwhelmed with a slew of ethics violation accusations.

More recently, this past year, Bachmann has continued to sound the alarm when she introduced a bill in Congress to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization.

Seems like an obvious thing to do. Bare minimum, really. And yet the bill had no chance of passing. Why? In part because our elected officials are so far behind the curve on the threat of Islam and all the forms the threat takes that we will be lucky to survive this centuries-old war. But also because we are so infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood that legislation to help ensure our survival is severely compromised. In other words, the very people and forces of evil we need to protect ourselves against already have such a foothold in this country that it will take what currently appears to be an insurmountable effort to defeat them.

Michele Bachmann has been on the front lines of this monumental battle.

At the Values Voters Summit this year, Bachmann spoke the words every elected official needs to be shouting from the roof tops, as reported by Bare Naked Islam:
Yes, Mr. President, it ‘is’ about Islam!” she said as the audience applauded wildly. At the 2014 Value Voters Summit, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) claimed that there is no such thing as “moderate” Islam, and that President Barack Obama failed the American people by deciding not to declare war on it. 
It’s rare to hear an elected official speak with such frankness about something so urgent and threatening.

Bachmann has also been outspoken about Obama’s response to ISIS, as The Blaze reports:
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said if the United States is going to defeat the Islamic State, combat troops will be necessary. (snip)
“Why be afraid of that?” Bachmann added after speaking at the Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C. “What we need to recognize is that this is an evil enemy that has declared war on the United States and they declared they will take war to our shores within the homeland. What we need to do is defeat the enemy. Like George Bush said, we defeat them there so that we don’t have to fight them here.” (snip)
“This is a paramount effort where the president wants to find so-called vetted moderates,” Bachmann said, noting there aren’t any.
In fact, referencing British intelligence, she said “half of those we already trained are sympathetic and are part of Islamic jihad. They get three and a half weeks of training. How is that going to stand up to the Islamic State with senior-level Al Qaeda experience?”
She said she would prefer that America fight with a World War II strategy rather than a Vietnam-style strategy.
“They are veterans of decades of fighting,” Bachmann added. “People who have three and a half weeks of training aren’t going to be able to stand up to this, and that’s why I say this is a slow-walk, Vietnam, failed strategy. We need to engage in a strategy that is going to defeat Islamic jihad decisively. We are the best military in the world. We can do it. We’ve got to step up to the task and we’ve got to get it done.”
Mediate reported on what were perhaps Bachmann’s most blunt and targeted words on ISIS:
“You kill their leader. You kill their council. You kill their army until they wave the white flag of surrender.”
As I said, she is a lone voice in the wilderness. And for having the courage to speak the truth she is now facing death threats. She will have a security detail until she retires from Congress. At that point, she and her family will face difficult choices.

This is the barbaric age in which we now live.

I hope AT readers will join me in offering profound gratitude to Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, a stalwart and brave patriot. May she and her family be safe from harm and be forever blessed.

To contact Congressman Bachmann, go here.

Carol Brown


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

Qatar and Terror - Denis MacEoin

by Denis MacEoin

Although outwardly more liberal than the Saudis, the Qataris have surpassed them as financiers of extremism and terrorism.
U.S. officials reckon that Qatar has now replaced Saudi Arabia as the source of the largest private donations to the Islamic State and other al-Qaeda affiliates.
Qatar, the world's wealthiest country per capita, also has the unsavory reputation for the mistreatment and effective slavery of much of its workforce.
Leaders of Western states threatened by jihadi advances are happy to sit down with the largest financiers of terrorism in the world, offer them help, take as much money as they can, and smile for the cameras.

There is a central weakness in the coalition against the Islamic State [IS] in Syria, as pointed out by Bryan Bender in the Boston Globe. There are 62 members of the coalition, some of which are Arab states: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Bahrain, Iraq, and Qatar. The U.S., however, carries the greatest weight in the air campaign against the self-proclaimed Caliphate. America had carried out 3,589 sorties by August 8, its partners 8; between September 23 (when most partners joined in attacks) and November 3, U.S. sorties numbered a further 3,320, with 1,090 by other coalition members.

The U.S., therefore, flies over 75% of missions -- an indication of American intent? It's not quite that simple.

One of those partners, Qatar, seems to be committed to the mission in other ways. It hosts the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East, the regional headquarters of U.S. Central Command, and stations American and British aircraft and personnel at al-Udeid Air Base.

The U.S. Congress has authorized and appropriated many millions of dollars over the years in return for use and maintenance of this important base.[1]

Qatar is now prepared to pay in full for the U.S. military presence during the campaign in return for American protection.[2]

Except, as a recent headline in the New Republic put it: "Qatar Is a U.S. Ally. They Also Knowingly Abet Terrorism. What's Going On?" Other views are harsher: "Qatar's overall cooperation, however, is the worst in the region."

Qatar is one of the world's smallest states with a miniscule population. A Saudi prince once said that it is made up of "300 people and a TV Channel" (referring to Al Jazeera, based in the capital, Doha). Qatar has only 278,000 citizens and 1.5 million expatriates who make up 94% of the workforce. Qatar, the world's wealthiest country per capita, also has an unsavory reputation for the mistreatment and effective slavery of much of its workforce.

Qatar is also imprisoning Matthew and Grace Huang, an American couple sentenced to three years in prison on charges of child endangerment, for allegedly murdering their adopted daughter, Gloria, 8, even though she apparently had health issues prior to the adoption. The Huangs continue to protest their innocence, and claim that the Qataris do not understand how an Asian couple could adopt three children, who happen to be black, from Africa.

Given Qatar's economic and political clout, created by its sovereign wealth fund, its oil, and its ownership of the world's third largest natural gas reserves, Qatar plays a role on the world stage and does much to enhance its public image. In a bid for international kudos, the emirate acted to ensure the award of the soccer World Cup for 2022, only to find itself mired in controversy.

In other spheres, Qatar is the single largest donor to the Brookings Institution, a major U.S. think tank. Payments included $14.8 million after the former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, blamed Israel for the failure of the latest round of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks; and it has given money to many universities in the U.S. and Europe.[3] Qatar also hosts eight international university campuses near Doha (Virginia Commonwealth, Weill Cornell, Texas A&M, Carnegie Mellon, Georgetown, Northwestern, HEC Paris, University College London, Calgary), and finances the RAND Policy Trust. It owns expensive properties in London, the Barcelona Football Club, and dabbles in other areas worldwide.

While all this increases Qatar's influence, most of it seems to be for show, to present an amiable face to the world. Qatar is not all gleaming towers, bars for non-Muslims, and a modern approach to sexual relations. It remains the only other Wahhabi country in the world next to Saudi Arabia. The problem here is the Qatar paradox. Although outwardly more liberal than the Saudis, the Qataris have surpassed them as financiers of extremism and terrorism. As with its neighbor, it is traditional, devoted to a highly conservative form of Islam, and an underlying commitment to Islamic values.

Although praised for its liberalism in many areas, Freedom House reported in 2013 that "civil liberties and political rights are severely restricted for residents and citizens alike, foreign workers face especially repressive conditions." Aside from a short period between 1976 and 1988, Qatar has remained categorized as "Not Free" since 1972, and has a particularly bad reputation for its brutal treatment of poor foreign workers.

Although non-Muslims are free to worship there, Qatari law bans any form of proselytization or outward show of faith (such as crosses on churches). There are severe laws against homosexuality, adultery (technically a capital crime, with provisions for flogging and stoning), and public criticism of the regime. As of 2011, the Democracy Index describes Qatar as an "authoritarian regime" with a score of 3.18 out of ten, and it ranks 138th out of the 167 countries covered.

Nowhere is this tendency clearer than in Qatar's support for international networks of terrorist organizations. While U.S. planes bomb outposts of ISIS from their Qatar airbase, Qatar is reputed to be sending money to ISIS, Hamas, Libyan jihadists, and others. Of course, the Qataris deny this. Standing beside German Chancellor Angela Merkel on September 27, Qatar's Emir Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani declared that, "What is happening in Iraq and Syria is extremism and such organizations are partly financed from abroad, but Qatar has never supported and will never support terrorist organizations".

Clearly, al-Thani either knows little about the country he rules or is trying to put one over on the world. One is reminded of how, after Black September's 1973 murders of three diplomats (two American and one Belgian) in Khartoum, the PLO "privately... threatened reprisal if the Sudanese continued to hold them [the killers] or put them on trial," while publicly disavowing the killings.[4]

Qatar finances terrorists with one hand, while the other joins hands with the West. Above: U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry meets with Qatari Emir Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani in New York City on September 25, 2014. (Image source: U.S. State Department)
The fundamentalist anti-Semitic Islamic preacher, Shaykh Yusuf 'Abd Allah al-Qaradawi, regarded by many as the leading scholar of the Muslim Brotherhood, has been living in Qatar on and off since the 1960s, while preaching a fundamentalist and often pro-terrorist message there through his website, Islam Online, and his Shari'a and Life television show on Al Jazeera. The Qatari government has never sought to rein him in.

Qatar's major international charity, the Qatar Charitable Society (now simply Qatar Charity) has acted as a financier and agency for terrorist outfits in several countries. It has funded al-Qaeda in Chechnya, Mali and elsewhere, was a key player in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and funded Syria's Ahfad al-Rasul Brigade. Qatar has also financed terrorists in northern Mali operations, including Ansar Dine, alleged to be linked to al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb [North Africa]; and it retains contacts with (and no doubt still funds) al-Qaeda.

According to David Blair and Richard Spencer, writing for London's Daily Telegraph, four branches of the Qatari government handle relations with armed groups in Syria and Libya. These are the Foreign and Defense Ministries, the Intelligence Agency, and the personal office [al-Diwan al-Amiri], of the Emir, who, as we have seen, flatly denies financing terrorism. The Amiri Diwan, as in Kuwait, appears in the lists of government ministries and offices.[5] Of course, Qatar does nothing directly. It prefers to use middlemen and to permit private individuals to do the work for it. Large sums are passed to middlemen in Turkey (itself no stranger to support for terrorism), and this money is used for the purchase of weapons from other countries (notably Croatia). The weapons are then transferred to rebel groups in Syria. It has also been claimed that money owed to British companies operating in Qatar has been siphoned off to Islamic State. This may require some ingenious application of the dark arts of bookkeeping, but it does provide another means of evading condemnation of the state.

One of the most obvious examples of government support for jihadi groups is that the international base of the Gazan terrorist group Hamas has been located in Doha since 2012. Khaled Mashaal, Chairman of Hamas's Political Bureau, is reportedly living an opulent lifestyle in a five-star hotel in Doha. Qatar has given generously to Hamas. In October, Ma'mun Abu Shahla, the Palestinian Authority's Minister of Labor, stated that the government of Qatar had given $30 million to provide staff with their first salary payments in several months, a distribution of largesse that will give half of the former Hamas government employees in Gaza their unpaid wages. This payment was arranged with Qatar by Robert Serry, the UN special coordinator for the Middle East peace process, despite fears of a backlash from international donor countries, including the U.S., which considers Hamas a terrorist organization.

Apart from cash advances to terrorist entities, the Qatari government seems to be directly involved in other activities, notably the shipping of planeloads of arms to Libyan jihadists. These shipments include a C-17 cargo plane carrying weaponry to a militia loyal to a warlord who had fought alongside Osama bin Laden; arms supplies to the jihadist coalition that now controls Tripoli after the launch of Operation Libya Dawn, and some $3 billion and 70 planeloads of arms to rebel forces in Syria.

Private fundraisers who coordinate donations from individual or corporate donors in Qatar are never detained or subjected to restrictions in Qatar, a privilege that means the transfer of considerable sums to al-Qaeda, Islamic State, Hamas, Jabhat al-Nusra and other Syrian Islamist groups.

The U.S. Treasury has given details of terrorist financiers operating in Qatar. The best known is 'Abd al-Rahman al-Nu'aymi, an academic and businessman who is a key link between Qatari donors and al-Qaeda in Iraq, the predecessor of today's Islamic State. At one time, Nu'aymi transferred $2 million per month to the organization. He has also sent around $576,000 to Abu Khalid al-Suri, al-Qaeda's Syrian representative, and $250,000 to the Somali jihadist group, al-Shabaab.

The U.S. Treasury Department has sanctioned Nu'aymi and other Qatari financiers in recent years. U.S. officials reckon that Qatar has now replaced Saudi Arabia as the source of the largest private donations to Islamic State and other al-Qaeda affiliates. The Qatari government has taken no steps to detain or punish al-Nu'aymi or anyone else, even though Islamist politics are, in theory, illegal in Qatar.

British Prime Minister David Cameron was warned by many people, before his meeting with the Emir of Qatar, that he had to tackle the issue of Qatar's funding of terrorism. The two men met on October 29. Here is part of the official government news briefing on the meeting:
On international affairs, they discussed the role both countries are playing in the coalition to tackle ISIL, and the importance of all countries working to tackle extremism and support to terrorist organisations. The Prime Minister welcomed the recent legislation passed in Qatar to prevent terrorist funding and looked forward to the swift implementation of these new measures. They also agreed that both countries should do more to share information on groups of concern.
Need one add that among the matters discussed by these world leaders was Qatar's recent £20 billion investment in the U.K., and Cameron's offer of British expertise in construction to assist the Emirate in building the 2022 World Cup events? Money talks, and in supine Western countries just coming out of a major recession, it talks very loudly. Al-Thani walked away from his meeting with Cameron covered in glory for his country's supposed work to defeat Islamist terrorism worldwide.

Leaders of Western states threatened by jihadist advances are happy to sit down with the largest financiers of terrorism in the world, offer them help, take as much money as they can, and smile for the cameras. They then sell their publics for crumbs from oil-rich monarchs who watch, wreathed in smiles, as the West abases itself out of greed and a total lack of concern for the human rights issues that dog these sheikhdoms in almost everything they do. The Qataris have money, they have power and influence, and they have an abiding love for fundamentalist Islam. They know what they are doing and they wait for their day to come.
Denis MacEoin is a former lecturer in Arabic and Islamic Studies and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute.

[1] Here is a short list of these payments: From FY2003 to FY2007, Congress authorized and appropriated $126 million for U.S. military construction activities in Qatar. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (P.L. 110-181) authorized $81.7 million in FY2008 spending to build new Air Force and Special Operations facilities in Qatar. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (P.L. 110-417) authorizes $69.6 million in FY2009 spending to build new Air Force and Special Operations facilities. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L. 111-84) authorizes $117 million in FY2010 spending to build new Air Force recreational, dormitory, and other facilities at Al Udeid. The Administration's FY2011 military construction request for Qatar was $64.3 million, for Air Force facilities and a National Security Agency warehouse. The FY2012 request includes $37 million to continue the dormitory and recreation facility project. See "Congress Appropriations and Authorizations", in "Al-Udeid Air Base," Wikipedia.
[2] "Qatar says ready to pay 'in full' for US military presence: Amr Moussa," Press TV, 1 December 2012 (accompanied by many condemnation of Qatar for doing so).
[3] For some details about its donations to the UK, see Robin Simcox, "A Degree of Influence", London, The Centre for Social Cohesion, 2009.
[4] Joshua Muravchik, Making David into Goliath, New York, 2014, p. 49, citing David Korn.
[5] See also State of Qatar Ministry of Interior, "Ministries".

Denis MacEoin


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