Tuesday, April 7, 2015

ISIS Seizure of Yarmouk 'Harms Palestinian Right of Return' - Dalit Halevy, Ari Yashar



by Dalit Halevy, Ari Yashar

Gaza organizations condemn capture of 'Palestinian refugee camp,' accuse ISIS of 'genocide.'


Residents of Yarmouk (illustration)
Residents of Yarmouk (illustration)
Reuters
 
Islamic State (ISIS) forces this week have taken over the Yarmouk neighborhood in southern Damascus, which is popularly known as a "Palestinian refugee camp," with reports indicating ISIS has been conducting arrests and acts of mass murder.

Representatives of the Islamic nationalist forces in Gaza, which are a confederation of the various Palestinian Arab groups, met with the Islamic Jihad headquarters in Gaza, after which an announcement condemning the activities of the "armed gangs" was published without listing ISIS by name.

The Islamist nationalist forces in the statement said that ISIS in Yarmouk is committing "genocide and harming the refugee problem and their right of return (to Israel)."

The mention of "right of return" refers to the fact that the residents of Yarmouk are the descendants of Arab residents of Israel who left the country during the 1948 War of Independence. Roughly 800,000 of the so-called "Palestinian refugees" left, whereas 850,000 Jewish refugees were forced out of Arab lands in the same time period, although their plight has received no international fanfare.

The statement called on the "armed gangs" to immediately withdraw from Yarmouk and release the captives.

In the statement, the Gaza representatives expressed their support of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) delegation that was sent to Syria on Monday to try and help residents of Yarmouk.

ISIS beheaded at least one senior Hamas figure in Yarmouk, which was largely under Hamas influence. The jihadist group views Hamas and the other Palestinian organizations as enemies, because they do not fully embrace jihad according to ISIS's definition and have not been immediately imposing Islamic Sharia law.

That enmity has seen expression in Gaza, where ISIS has expressed its intentions to depose Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (PA).


Dalit Halevy, Ari Yashar

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/193783#.VSQex5Ozd-8

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

Habayit Hayehudi seeks to curtail High Court's power - Israel Hayom Staff



by Israel Hayom Staff

As part of coalition negotiations, Habayit Hayehudi demands promotion of bill restricting High Court's ability to strike down legislative proposals that contradict Basic Laws • Attempt to pass similar bill during previous Knesset's term failed.
 

Habayit Hayehudi leader Naftali Bennett
|
Photo credit: Yossi Zeliger


Israel Hayom Staff

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=24669

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

'Reclaim Australia' Rallies Against Sharia Law, Halal 'Tax' - Meira Svirsky



by Meira Svirsky

"Most here are happy to have immigrants who want to come and fit in. We're protesting against immigrants who don't want to follow our laws."


Reclaim Australia protesters and counter-protesters clash over an Australian flag.
Reclaim Australia protesters and counter-protesters clash over an Australian flag.

“Reclaim Australia” rallies were held in 16 different locations across Australia Saturday. Billed as a call for “patriotic Australians” to “stand together to stop halal tax, sharia law and Islamisation,” the rallies provoked violent encounters with counter protesters who billed the events as racist and anti-Muslim.

Reclaim Australia, a community organization, denied the accusations.  "We're not against any particular race or any particular religion," John Oliver, an activist with the organization, said. "We're against the extremists of one particular religion.  I know in Sydney and Melbourne they've got Muslims already signed on to attend because they can see what's happening and they don't like what's happening."

Most Reclaim Australia protesters interviewed seemed to agree that the group was opposed to Islamic extremism and not Muslims who follow Australian law and whose intentions were not to change Australian culture.

Typical at the rallies were the sentiments of protester John Bolton who told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, "What I'm not against is ordinary Australian people who happen to be Muslims who follow their faith, they don't need anybody's permission, provided they comply with the Australian civil and criminal law and want to comply with our constitution."

Reclaim Australia protestersReclaim Australia protesters

"Most here are happy to have immigrants who want to come and fit in," Reclaim Australia protester Rhonda Cashmore said. "We're protesting against immigrants who don't want to follow our laws."

Reclaim Australia spokeswoman Catherine Brennan concurred. "We are pro-Australian values and anti-extreme Islam, but we're not anti-Muslim," she stated. “Since when is it being racist to love your country and to love the values and culture that you've been brought up with?"

Australia has been hit with a spate of Islamic extremist crime. Last September, Australian police embarked on a major counter-terrorism operation in response to intelligence reports that the Islamic State was planning an imminent attack. In the largest terror raid in Australia’s history, close to 800 federal and state police officers were dispatched to more than 12 locations across Sydney, with more raids coordinated in Brisbane and Logan as well.

Australian residents comprise the highest number of foreign fighters per capita to the ranks of the Islamic State.  A number of Australian citizens have made the news for joining the Islamic State as well as the vast majority of the estimated 200 fighters who remain anonymous.

However, it was clear from signs held at various rallies that the protests had been joined by those who clearly opposed Islam itself. Danny Nalliah, founder of the Rise Up Australia Party, spoke at the rally in Melbourne, saying he was "not against Muslim people, but ... opposed to the teachings of Islam."

Clashes at theprotestsClashes at the protests

Comments such as those prompted counter-protest organizers to declare that the rallies smacked of racism. "It's quite clearly an attack on Muslims and Muslim communities in this country," said Clare Fester, a counter-protest organizer in Sydney.

Proof of this, Fester argued was that, "It's all about halal food, sharia law, banning the burqa. [It's] something I think that's been encouraged by mainstream politicians as well, with Abbott attacking Muslim leaders and telling them they need to stamp out extremism that really doesn't exist, certainly not in Australia."

Fester was referring to a speech given by Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott after a Sydney cafĂ© was attacked in December 2013 by an Islamic extremist, resulting in a siege that left hostages dead. At the time, Abbott said, “I’ve often heard Western leaders describe Islam as a ‘religion of peace.’  I wish more Muslim leaders would say that more often, and mean it.” Abbott also told the leaders to “get with the program” of countering Islamic extremism and began a nationwide crackdown on radical Muslims and mosques.

Throughout the country, counter-demonstrators from groups such as “No Room for Racism,” “Socialist Alliance” and “Socialist Alternative” shouted at and, in many locations, came to blows with Reclaim Australia protesters.

Clashes at the protestClashes at the protest

However, most speakers made a point to deny that they were racist. Rather they said that their intention was to preserve Australia’s Christian/Judeo-Christian culture, protest against the “halal tax” on meat. Most meat in Australia is certified as halal, which means it meets specific requirements of Islamic law. Muslims account for only three percent of Australia’s population.

Australia’s “conversation” about Islamic extremism follows the Pegida movement rallies in Germany, where thousands of German citizens took to the streets to protest the growing "Islamization" of Germany and the spread of sharia law.

Quick to call the movement racist and xenophobic, the German government and press spoke forcefully against the movement.

By January, Pegida appeared to be unravelling when five of its leaders resigned after its founder quit over a photo that showed him dressed “as a joke” in a Hitler costume.

The “Reclaim” movement also appears to be vulnerable to xenophobes. Its rallies were promoted on neo-Nazi websites such as the Daily Stormer, which urged “White Australian men” to attend the protests, saying “the people that you’ll find at Reclaim Australia are very valuable to us in the long term. They’re on the right track and, with our guidance, they can be turned into hardcore Nazis.”

Many signs at the protests were clearly anti-Islam.

If Reclaim activists are sincere about not being “racists,” they must root out these elements.  Coalitions of anti-racist Westerners must be made with anti-Islamist/reformist Muslims to address the real issue of Islamic extremism. This is an impossible feat when xenophobes have joined the movement.

Instead of the conversation focusing on the human rights abuses of sharia law, gender inequality and abuse in Islamist societies, the cry becomes about racism, which plays into the hands of both the Islamists and their Western apologists. Witness the counterdemonstrators in Australia who called out Tony Abbott for “attacking” Muslim leaders when he asked them to do more to fight extremism in their communities.

These voices seek to silence those speaking against the reality of Islamic extremism as well as anti-Islamist/reformist Muslims. The conversation, which has been hijacked on both sides by extremists, must be reclaimed.   


Meira Svirsky is the editor of ClarionProject.org

Source: http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/reclaim-australia-rallies-against-sharia-law-halal-tax

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

Monday, April 6, 2015

Obama's Passover Gift to Israel: Releasing Iran from Bondage - Dan Calic



by Dan Calic

Obama is also close friends with Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian professor at Columbia University. Khaldidi was instrumental in bringing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, who stated Israel should be wiped off the map, to speak at the renowned university. Khalidi is also known for his strong anti-Semitic/pro-Palestinian views.

With influences such as these, is it any wonder President Obama has been the most anti-Israel President in US history?


In light of the announced deal with Iran, more people are scratching their heads questioning the foreign policy decisions of the Obama Presidency. A few reminders might be in order.

President Obama’s first phone call to a foreign leader upon taking office in ’09 was to Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority.

His first international speech was in Cairo, where he declared a “new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world."

In order to prove how serious he was about improving relations with the Muslims, he immediately set his sights on America’s strongest ally, Israel. He openly blackmailed Israel when he said his degree of toughness on Iran would depend on how flexible Israel is with the Palestinians. What does getting tough on Iran have to do with solving a local issue between Israel and the Palestinians? In other words we are supposed to believe if Israel knuckles under and turns over its heartland to people who are theologically committed to its destruction, with a charter that requires said goal, this means the US will be gentile with Iran? What’s Iran’s interest in the Palestinians? Iran is Shiite. The Palestinians are overwhelmingly Sunni. They hate each other. What am I missing here Mr. President?

He walked out on Netanyahu’s White House visit in March 2010 giving him a diplomatic slap in the face. When Mahmoud Abbas next came to the WH he received the full diplomatic protocol…and unlike Netanyahu, he entered and left through the front door of the White House.

Moreover, so bad was Obama’s treatment of Israel, he received letters from 50 retired US Generals, and both Houses of Congress, signed by 75% of US lawmakers, telling him to stop treating Israel so poorly. Such letters are unprecedented.

Most recently he supported an American-led effort in Israel to defeat Netanyahu. Plus, he was so furious with the Israeli leader for disagreeing with him on a deal with Iran, Obama reacted by declassifying US documents about Israel’s nuclear program.

Now, as Jews worldwide celebrate release from bondage under Pharaoh by observing Passover, Obama has released Iran from bondage with a deal that will allow them to continue their nuclear program, which at best only delays their ability to obtain nuclear weapons.

Before we all get lost in a celebratory daze, let’s take a quick Obama history course.

One might wonder why he has turned relations with Israel upside down. Keep in mind his most significant childhood influence was Frank Marshall Davis, an active member of the Communist Party and founder of the Chicago Star, a Communist newspaper. Marshall was also under FBI surveillance for 19 years and considered a security threat.

The President spent 20 years attending the church of Rev. Jerimiah Wright, an avowed anti-Semite, and promoter of Black Liberation Theology.

Obama is also close friends with Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian professor at Columbia University. Khaldidi was instrumental in bringing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, who stated Israel should be wiped off the map, to speak at the renowned university. Khalidi is also known for his strong anti-Semitic/pro-Palestinian views.

With influences such as these, is it any wonder President Obama has been the most anti-Israel President in US history?

However, he’s also turned US relations with longtime Arab allies around, and not for the better. For example, when the so-called “Arab Spring” demonstrations erupted in Cairo in 2011, he tossed Hosni Mubarak, a 30 year US ally under the bus, and publically announced support for the movement which resulted in bringing Mohammed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood to power. The MB is the grandfather of Islamic terrorist organizations. Founded in 1928 after the 1917 collapse of the Ottoman Empire, its primary goal is to establish an Islamic Caliphate, replacing the Ottomans.  Other terrorists organizations spawned from their umbrella include Hamas, Al Qaeda, and Islamic Jihad.

When the same “voice of the people” as Obama called them, chose to get rid of Morsi’s Islamist regime less than two years after coming to power, Obama expressed great concern that democracy was in jeopardy.  Morsi was ousted, and jailed, where he remains today. When Egypt elected Abdel Fattah el Sisi, the Egyptian government made it clear that because of Obama’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt could no longer trust the US. This resulted in Egypt inking a huge arms deal with Russia.

Another relationship which has changed is Saudi Arabia. Next to Israel, the Saudis have been America’s closest ally in the region. However, two events altered the status of US-Saudi relations.  First was Obama’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Then when Obama announced the US would enter into negotiations with Iran, which included relaxation of sanctions and unfreezing $800 million of their assets, the Saudis felt stabbed in the back. The Saudis have also been forced to lead a coalition against the Iranian backed rebels in Yemen, because the US has refused to get involved due to the negotiations with Iran. This has added to the frosty Saudi-US relations.

Now he’s carved out a deal with Iran, the main sponsor of state terrorism, run by Shiite ayatollahs. Not surprisingly, voices of concern have been raised by numerous countries, including several other Gulf allies.

If there is one country which represents the precise opposite of Judeo-Christian democratic values, it is Iran. Their theology is fundamental Islam, which at its foundation requires the liquidation of Jews and Christians, before their messiah known as the Mahdi returns. They have repeatedly stated Israel should be wiped off the map. Plus, so much hatred exists between Saudi Arabia and Iran, that Saudi recently said they would allow Israeli jets air space to attack Iran.

Let’s not forget that just recently while Secretary of State John Kerry was meeting with Iran’s foreign minister, they were blowing up mock versions of US ships in the Gulf, for the world to see.

Regarding Iran’s nuclear program, their goal has always been to obtain nuclear weapons. If this weren’t the case why would they have made it so difficult for IAEA inspectors to have full, consistent and complete access to every nook and cranny of all of their facilities? Time and again Iran has delayed, changed or refused inspections. Also, if anyone believes they have been completely forthcoming with the location of every one of their nuclear facilities, said person must believe the moon is made of cheese.

The combination of all of these should make it clear to anyone, they cannot be trusted! Yet President Obama seems to think he can accomplish what no other leader can by striking a deal with them.  Given his track record when it comes to the Middle East, he is the last person I would put my faith in when it comes to making a deal. Trust me when I say neither he nor the Iranians can be trusted.

Should the US Congress decide they need to approve the deal with Iran, they might be what saves the world from this apocalyptic regime having the last laugh.


Dan Calic is a writer, history student and speaker. See additional articles on his Facebook page

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/04/obamas_passover_gift_to_israel_releasing_iran_from_bondage.html

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

Connecting the Dots: Iran, Immigration & National Security - Michael Cutler



by Michael Cutler

“As Iran moves closer to nuclear weapons and there is increasing concern over war between Iran and Israel, we must also focus on Iran’s secret operatives and their number one terrorist proxy force, Hezbollah, which we know is in America,” said New York Rep. Peter King at a Wednesday hearing of his committee.

imageThis past week John Kerry, bargaining from a self-imposed position of weakness, continued to negotiate with Iran, the world’s most pernicious state sponsor of international terrorism, even after America’s allies walked away. It might be said that Kerry agreed to take “no” for an answer.

Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu left no doubt about his grave concerns about the wisdom of the agreement being hammered out at the behest of the Obama administration that legitimizes Iran’s nuclear program and therefore poses an existential threat to Israel.

Mr. Obama has said that a deal with Iran would be “historic.”

My concern is that Obama’s statement will be prophetic. History records as many tragedies as successes. The Hindenburg explosion was certainly historic. So was the loss of the Titanic and two of our space shuttles.

In point of fact, every major war has been historic as has been the Holocaust.

Many of the events recorded in history books were written with blood- rivers and, indeed, oceans of blood.

The news media has reported on Netanyahu’s concerns and noted how a nuclear Iran would, indeed, pose a threat to Israel’s survival. What has not been considered is that a nuclear Iran would pose no less a threat to America.

There is a saying that when confronting several adversaries in a dark alley you should not go after the smallest adversary but the largest. The reasoning is that if you beat up the smallest guy first, you will then have to fight your way up until you wind up fighting the largest adversary last. By then your strength and ability would have been largely depleted.

On the other hand, if you successfully take on the biggest adversary first, the other guys will run away and you will prevail.

Undoubtedly when Iran looks at Israel and the United States, the United States is that largest adversary.

Iran is operating in the Western Hemisphere as has been for many years. Their presence in our hemisphere and indeed our country, leaves us vulnerable to a devastating attack.

On April 21, 2010 the Washington Times published a report entitled, “Iran boosts Qods shock troops in Venezuela.”

On February 3, 2012 ABC News which posted an article, “Exclusive: Israel Warns US Jews: Iran Could Strike Here,” that had a clear and unambiguous title.

On March 21, 2012, the Huffington Post published an extremely disturbing article that was entitled: “Peter King: Iran May Have ‘Hundreds’ Of Hezbollah Agents In U.S.”

The basis for the Huffington Post article was a hearing that was conducted that day by the House Committee on Homeland Security that is chaired by Congressman Peter King of New York, the topic of the hearing was, “Iran, Hezbollah, and the Threat to the Homeland.”

Here is how the Huffington Post article began:
WASHINGTON — Iranian-backed Hezbollah agents, not al Qaeda operatives, may pose the greatest threat on U.S. soil as tensions over Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program ratchet up, according to the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security.
“As Iran moves closer to nuclear weapons and there is increasing concern over war between Iran and Israel, we must also focus on Iran’s secret operatives and their number one terrorist proxy force, Hezbollah, which we know is in America,” said New York Rep. Peter King at a Wednesday hearing of his committee.
The hearing, which featured former government officials and the director of intelligence analysis for the New York Police Department, follows a foiled plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, D.C., and testimony by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in late January that Iran’s leaders are “more willing to conduct an attack inside the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime.”
Opening the hearing, King said, “We have a duty to prepare for the worst,” warning there may be hundreds of Hezbollah operatives in the United States, including 84 Iranian diplomats at the United Nations and in Washington who, “it must be presumed, are intelligence officers.”
Congressman Peter King focused primarily on the threats posed by Iranian diplomats and, indeed, these diplomats should be of great concern to us. However, these diplomats are readily identifiable. We know their identities and the fact that they are officially connected to the Iranian government. There are other Iranians who are present in the United States whose relationship with the Iranian government and its goals of destroying the United States are not so readily identifiable.

On Friday, May 24, 2013 the newspapers, “The Blaze” and “My San Antonio” reported on the arrest of Wissam Allouche by the FBI and members of the JTTF (Joint Terrorism Task Force) in San Antonio, Texas, for lying on his application for naturalization to acquire United States citizenship. The article published by “My San Antonio” was entitled: “Alleged member of Hezbollah arrested here” while the article in “The Blaze” was entitled: “Infiltration? The Alarming Details Surrounding Alleged Hezbollah Member’s Arrest in Texas.”

Here is an important excerpt from “The Blaze” article:
The federal indictment revealed Allouche had married a U.S. citizen and was going through the naturalization process when he was arrested. When asked by officials if he had ever been associated with a terrorist organization, he replied no. That apparently turned out to be a lie.
According to the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, he was a militant with the Amal militia in Lebanon in the early to mid-1980s. He was reportedly captured as a Israeli prisoner of war, but was later released to become a commander of the Amal militia.
“News reports at the time said Hezbollah was formed by religious members of the Amal movement.”
In addition to lying about his terror ties, Allouche is also accused of lying about his relationship with his ex-wife. He falsely claimed on his application forms in 2009 that he and his wife were married and living together for the past three years. In reality, they had no lived together since May 2007 and they filed for divorce in December of 2007.
While Allouche’s allegedly committed fraud in filing his application for naturalization, it must be noted that if the allegations are accurate, that he also gamed the the process by which he had been granted lawful immigrant status years earlier. He had a Green Card (Alien Registration Receipt Card) for at least three years before he applied for United States citizenship. The 9/11 Commission identified such fraud as being an integral part of the strategy terrorists have used to enter the United States and embed themselves.

At the time of his arrest Allouche, was applying for a security clearance in order to work for the Department of Defense and had also applied for naturalization. Allegedly he lied by claiming to have never been a member of a terrorist organization when in fact, according to the FBI, he had not just been a member of Hezbollah, but had been a commander of that terrorist organization.

On May 29, 2013 both of those newspapers published follow-up reports in conjunction with disclosures made by prosecutors during the bail hearing.

The title of the Blaze article was, “God of Death Bombshell Revelations About Alleged Hezbollah Commander Arrested In Texas.”

The article published in My San Antonio, “Accused Ex-Hezbollah Member Referred to as God” included the following excerpt:
Allouche was arrested by the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force here last week after being indicted on charges of not disclosing, during his quest to obtain his U.S. citizenship, his membership in the Amal militia and Hezbollah in Lebanon in the 1980s.
He’s also charged with not disclosing his prior membership in those groups when he applied for a security clearance with the Defense Department as he sought a contracting job.
Before 2009, Allouche worked for L-3 Communications, which provides linguistic services for the U.S. military, and he was deployed for several months to Iraq. He has lived in the U.S. since about 2002, and once owned Windcrest Mobil, a gas station at Walzem Road and Interstate 35, his lawyer said.
In view of the charges lodged against Allouche, it would be important to know what the vetting process was that enabled him to be put in a position of trust. He was deployed with American troops in Iraq as a translator. This means that he may have assisted in the questioning and vetting of suspected terrorists and with those applying to work with our military. This raises some obvious and important questions.

What classified documents or people did he have had access to? Did he come to meet with covert officers whose identities must be preserved? Did he meet with suspected terrorists and, perhaps, have the capability to alter what the record reflects that they did or did not say? Might he have learned the identities of foreign nationals who for whatever reason decided to become cooperators? Has this endangered their lives and the operations that they were providing information for? Might he mistranslated statements made by terrorists seeking to gain entry to military bases to subsequently kill American soldiers?

The Allouche case is hardly an isolated one. Furthermore, the threat of terrorism is not just limited to Iranian citizens but may involve terrorists from other countries that are funded and otherwise supported by Iran.

Let us now consider yet another example of ineptitude that is beyond description or comprehension.

The Inspector General that has responsibility for the Witness Protection Program, conducted an audit of that program and found gaping holes in the system. While it is important for the government to protect witnesses whose testimony and information is vital to conducting successful investigations and prosecutions of criminals and terrorists, it must also be remembered that witnesses can themselves, pose a threat to public safety. The Witness Protection Program is commonly known by an acronym, WITSEC that stands for “Witness Security.”

Perhaps the important WITSEC program should henceforth be referred to as “WITLESS Security!”

Here is the headline from a May 16, 2013 article that was published by The Atlantic Wire, “How Did U.S. Marshalls Lose Suspected Terrorists in Witness Protection?”

Here is an excerpt from this article:
This is not the good news Attorney General Eric Holder was likely hoping for. A public memorandum issued on Thursday by the Department of Justice’s Inspector General indicates that in July 2012 the U.S. Marshal Service, the federal law enforcement agency of the DoJ of Tommy Lee Jones notoriety, was unable to locate two “known or suspected terrorists” participating in the Witness Security Program, the well-known protection program (of Goodfellas fame) administered by the Marshal Service. “Through its investigative efforts,” the Inspector General writes, the agency “concluded that one individual was and the other individual was believed to be residing outside the United States.”
The mishap was apparently one of many incidents where the agency inadvertently allowed protected witnesses, who were also identified as “known or suspected terrorists,” to travel freely out of and within the United States. Indeed, the agency is only beginning to track how many witnesses have been tagged as such. From the inspector’s report:
We found that the Department did not definitively know how many known or suspected terrorists were admitted into the [Witness Security Program]. The Department has idenitifed a small but significant number of USMS WITSEC Program participants as known or suspected terrorists. As of March 2013, the Deparment is continuing to review its more than 18,000 WITSEC case files to determine whether additional known or suspected terrorists have been admitted into the program.
The 18-page report goes on to list a number of problems (described as “significant issues concerning national security”) with the way the U.S. Marshal Service deals with suspected terrorists, such as neglecting to share valuable case information with other agencies like the F.B.I.
The Atlantic Wire article provided a link to a CNN report which contained even more details: First on CNN: Witness Protection Program lost two ‘known or suspected terrorists.’

Here is a truly disconcerting paragraph from the CNN report:
The IG summary said that although the Marshals Service was giving known or suspected terrorists who participated in the WITSEC program and their dependents new names and identity documentation, the Justice Department “was not authorizing the disclosure to the Terrorist Screening Center,” which operates the terrorist watch list that helps provide information to the Transportation Security Administration’s No-Fly and Selectee lists. “Therefore it was possible for known or suspected terrorists to fly on commercial airplanes in or over the United States and evade one of the government’s primary means of identifying and tracking terrorists’ movements and actions,” the summary said.
Think about that paragraph the next time you wait to be screen by the TSA before you board an airliner.

On December 1, 2013 the Huffington Post ran a worrying report, “America Is ‘Less Safe’ Than 2 Years Ago, Intelligence Committee Chairs Say.”

The report focused on statements made by Senator Dianne Feinstein, who, at the time, chaired the Senate’s Intelligence Committee, when she was interviewed for CNN’s program, “State of the Union.”

Here is how the report began:
Interviewed on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she believed that there are now more terrorists with the technological means to carry out a bombing in the U.S.
Here is an additional important excerpt from the Huffington Post article:
“I think terror is up worldwide,” said Feinstein, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee. “There are new bombs, very big bombs, trucks being reinforced for those bombs. There are bombs that go through magnetometers. The bomb-maker is still alive. There are more groups than ever. And there is huge malevolence out there.”
Feinstein added that there was “a real displaced aggression in this very fundamentalist jihadist Islamic community, and that is that the West is responsible for everything that goes wrong and that the only thing that’s going to solve this is Islamic Sharia law.”
On the same day, December 1, 2013 Newsmax posted the report that provided an even more dire warning, “Sen. Feinstein, Rep. Rogers: Terror Threat Greater Than Before Sept 11.”
This report began with this unambiguous assessment:
The U.S. is in greater danger of a terrorist attack than it was prior to September 11 and has less ability to prevent such aggression by Islamist radicals, key congressional intelligence leaders said Sunday.
On September 20, 2013 CAPS (Californians for Population Stabilization) posted my article about the failures of the vetting process for alien applicants who apply for immigration benefits, “Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Background Checks Require a Reality Check.” The focus of my commentary was that simply running the unverifiable name an applicant provides in an application for an immigration benefit leaves the proverbial door wide open to aliens to use false aliases- especially when we are discussing aliens who have evaded the inspections process designed, in part, to prevent terrorists, criminals and fugitives from entering the United States.

In the parlance of the open borders / immigration anarchists, these aliens are “undocumented.” Such aliens have no official, reliable identity documents to verify their true identities including their names, dates of birth or even countries of birth.

There is no way to readily determine when, where or how such aliens actually entered the United States .

Running their fingerprints may well not yield any meaningful results. Many times the fingerprints from aliens from Third World countries or countries that do not have good relations with the United States will simply come back as a “no hit.”

On July 30, 2012 CAPS (Californians for Population Stabilization) posted my commentary: “Fraud: The Immigration Vulnerability That Undermines the Immigration System and National Security.”

On November 20, 2013 ABC News reported, “Exclusive: US May Have Let ‘Dozens’ of Terrorists Into Country As Refugees.”

This is not a new problem, on July 13, 2011 the Washington Times published a truly disturbing article, “Visas reviewed to find those who overstayed / Aim is to find any would-be terrorists.”

The next time you hear some politician talk about “First securing the U.S./Mexican border” I want you to consider what the 9/11 Commission had to say about the way to counter terror threats-

Approximately a decade ago, on March 10, 2005 I testified before a hearing conducted by the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims on the topic, “INTERIOR IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES.”

My prepared testimony at that hearing included a quote from the 9/11 Commission Staff Report on Terrorist Travel. Here is an excerpt from my testimony that included that quote:
The 9/11 Commission ultimately came to recognize the critical nature of immigration law enforcement where the War on Terror is concerned. In fact, page 49 of the report entitled, 9/11 and Terrorist Travel, A Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States contains a sentence that reads, Thus abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity. This page incidentally is contained in the chapter entitled, Terrorist Travel and Embedding Tactics.
The issue of the interior enforcement of our immigration laws is a critical- indeed, key component of national security and today, under the wrong-headed policies of the administration- there is no meaningful enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States. This encourages still more illegal immigration. To paraphrase my testimony at subsequent hearing conducted by the Senate Immigration Subcommittee approximately two years ago- the failures of the immigration system and statements made by political leaders about the “solution” to millions of illegal aliens who evaded the vital inspections process amount to firing the starter’s pistol for aspiring illegal aliens from around the world. The message is clear- if you can ultimately enter the United States, no matter how you manage to do this, you will ultimately be given lawful status.

It is dishonest and misleading for our leaders to state that in order to gain control of our immigration system we must “First secure the (U.S./Mexican border).” On February 5, 2015 FrontPage Magazine posted my article, “The ‘Secure Our Border First Act’ Deception” that exposed this supposed “solution” to America’s immigration crisis. Although that bill failed to pass, it provided evidence that members of Congress of both political parties are as much a part of the problem as the administration.

The administration should be given the MVP award by international terrorist and criminal organizations, providing millions of illegal aliens with lawful status and admitting tens of thousands of refugees who are not being vetted.

On February 28th I was a guest on Fox & Friends and interviewed by Anna Kooiman on the broad issue of the risks to America’s national security that are created by our dysfunctional immigration system, especially where the political asylum program is concerned. We also narrowed our focus to the situation that now exists in Minneapolis, MN where a community of 30,000 Somali refugees was established.

Fox News posted the video of the interview under the title, “Somali refugees in Minnesota raise terror fears.”

On February 24, 2015 Progressives For Immigration Reform posted my commentary, “The Immigration Factor Naturalized U.S. Citizen Added to FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists List.”. about a naturalized United States citizen who was born in Somalia and has been placed on the FBI’s “Most Wanted Terrorists List.” The FBI press release actually expressed extreme concern that because this individual who is now believed fighting on the side of ISIS overseas had been a taxi driver in Washington, DC and therefore has an intimate familiarity with the infrastructure of our nation’s Capitol that could help him or his confederates to launch a debilitating attack in Washington.

On December 19, 2014 Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS) posted my extensive article, “Obama’s ‘Gift’ to International Terrorists: Immigration Executive Action.”

On the local level so-called “Sanctuary Cities” and even “Sanctuary States” are provided outrageous opportunities for sleepers to embed themselves in their jurisdictions. On January 23, 2015 FrontPage Magazine published my article, “Sleeper Cells: The Immigration Component of the Threat” which focused on how terrorists are able to hide in plain sight.

The lunacy must stop before, God forbid, the next terror attack(s). Our borders and our immigration laws are our first line of defense and last line of defense against those who would kill us.

Someone needs to send Mr. Obama the memo: “Our president is supposed to defend and protect our citizens and our allies and frighten our enemies.” Somehow it would seem he got that memo’s message reversed!


Michael Cutler

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/michael-cutler/connecting-the-dots-iran-immigration-national-security/

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

Repeating History Yet Again - Bruce Thornton



by Bruce Thornton

As North Korea and Iraq in the 90s have shown, inspectors can be deceived, gulled, and misdirected for years. And relying on inspections assumes we know of all the facilities that need inspecting. Finally, just as German U-boats were necessary only for Hitler’s anticipated war with France and England, so too today Iran’s research facilities and enriched uranium are necessary only for constructing a nuclear weapon in order to bolster and confirm its status as the region’s dominant power.


Cleared for release by Joint Staff Public AffairsWe all should be angry right now about the disastrous “general understanding” with Iran about its nuclear ambitions. According to its terms, Iran will not shut down a single facility, will not dismantle a single centrifuge, and will not ship its stockpile of enriched uranium out of the country. Various inspection regimes and “sanctions snap-back” are supposed to punish Iran for cheating on its commitments, but those are empty threats. Worse yet, sanctions will be lifted upon signing, at least according to the Iranians. This means billions will pour into the coffers of the Republican Guard, money that will finance its current expansion throughout the region and support for terrorists.

The simple fact that will result from a formalization of these “key parameters” is that Iran will become a nuclear power and the regional hegemon, with serious consequences for our own and our allies’ security and interests. What is depressing about this failure is that it has happened so many times before, a history that should have aroused some prudence and caution in our leaders. Munich is everybody’s favorite analogy these days, but that disaster was the culmination of nearly two decades of wishful thinking, feckless idealism, and short-term thinking. Central to that dismal failure were arms agreements that in the end did nothing to prevent war, and instead armed the aggressors.

The pending agreement with Iran, for example, recalls England’s foolish naval agreement signed with Germany in 1935. This deal followed 15 years of Germany’s serial violations of the Versailles Treaty’s disarmament clauses. For example, Germany was allowed by the Treaty to build no more than 6 armored ships of 10,000 tons. Yet the British knew that two recently constructed “pocket-battleships,” allowed by the treaty, were in fact 26,000-ton light battle cruisers. Yet despite this “brazen and fraudulent violation of the Peace Treaty,” as Churchill described it, the government decided to negotiate the Anglo-German Naval Agreement. And this took place even as the British were protesting Hitler’s blatant violations of the Treaty’s limitations on Germany’s military development. So too today, Iran’s numerous violations of 6 Security Council resolutions––and its missile and nuclear weaponization programs unmentioned by the framework––are on the brink of being rewarded by a deal favorable to the violator.

The terms of the Anglo-German agreement were as detrimental to England’s security and imperial interests as those conceded to Iran will be to ours. The German Navy could not exceed 35% of the size of the British, but the German submarine fleet could reach 45%. Worse yet, Germany was given the option to raise that to 100% if circumstances warranted. The Germans gave heartfelt assurances that their U-boats would never be used against merchants, and we know now how much that promise was worth––2,779 allied ships. But the real flaw in the agreement was that Germany’s fleet was so much smaller than England’s that reaching the 35% limit would, as Churchill wrote, “set her yards to work at maximum activity for at least ten years. There was therefore no practical limitation or restraint of any kind imposed on German naval expansion. They could build as fast as was physically possible.”

The proposed agreement with Iran is similarly shortsighted. We will allow enrichment at levels that can be quickly increased to those necessary for a weapon, accepting the Iranians’ word that they need enriched uranium for peaceful purposes. If we didn’t believe that preposterous pretext, why else would we give up on the demand that they cease enrichment altogether? This belief is the “acme of gullibility,” as Churchill said of the German promise not to ever attack shipping with U-boats. Nor will there be any guarantee that the Iranians will not exceed enrichment levels whenever they want, long before any 10-year “sunset provision” for lifting restrictions. As North Korea and Iraq in the 90s have shown, inspectors can be deceived, gulled, and misdirected for years. And relying on inspections assumes we know of all the facilities that need inspecting. Finally, just as German U-boats were necessary only for Hitler’s anticipated war with France and England, so too today Iran’s research facilities and enriched uranium are necessary only for constructing a nuclear weapon in order to bolster and confirm its status as the region’s dominant power.

Next, England entered into the negotiations with Germany without involving its key ally France. This despite the fact that England had pledged to protect France from German aggression, for as the victim of 5 attacks during the previous 100 years, France was more vulnerable to German militarism. Thus Hitler scored a big diplomatic victory with the naval agreement, for he got one of the Allies formally to condone his violation of the Versailles Treaty, and to grant Germany de facto permission to rearm, both to the detriment of the other Ally, France. Moreover, other powers in Europe took note of England’s disregard of its ally’s security. Mussolini determined that England was an unreliable ally, motivated only by its own interests, and ready to accommodate Germany no matter how fraught with risk for its allies. And the Scandinavian countries were troubled that England had allowed Germany a naval force big enough to dominate the Baltic Sea.

Likewise the looming agreement with Iran has spooked our allies. Israel, of course, has already been the victim of 3 invasions by Muslim enemies. And today it is the Iranian theocracy’s mortal enemy, one the regime has repeatedly threatened to destroy. Just as England’s deal with Germany left France vulnerable to renewed aggression, so too Israel now finds its own security more at risk. And our other regional allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia are also losing faith in our reliability, and looking elsewhere for new friends, just as Mussolini drew closer to Germany, a fateful realignment that made World War II more likely.

Finally, only Hitler’s invasion of Poland and instigation of the world war kept the agreement from sparking a naval arms-race of the sort instrumental in causing World War I. Today, however, there is no doubt that Iran’s acquisition of the bomb will provoke other countries in the region, Saudi Arabia in particular, to go nuclear in order to counter its historical ethnic and sectarian rival. Such an outcome will leave an already volatile region even more dangerous, particularly for our allies.

In short, as Churchill told the House of Commons, the Iran deal will not “be found to work for the cause of peace.” Nor will it, as the Obama administration ostensibly hopes, make Iran our regional “partner” in “stabilizing” the Middle East, any more than the Anglo-German agreement––mentioned by name in the infamous “Peace in our time” agreement Chamberlain waved on his return to England from Munich––helped bring Germany back into normal relations with its neighbors. Like Germany, Iran has other plans and ambitions, none of which serve the security and interests of our allies or us. If formalized into an agreement, this deal with Iran will instead help the mullahs make a quantum leap towards fulfilling those aims. And we will be doomed to repeat a history from which we long ago should have learned.


Bruce Thornton

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/bruce-thornton/repeating-history-yet-again/

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

Iranian Regime Continues Its Fabrications About Khamenei's Nonexistent Fatwa Banning Nuclear Weapons - MEMRI



by MEMRI
In President Obama's announcement of the joint statement following the conclusion of the negotiations in Lausanne, he again mentioned the nonexistent fatwa, stating as fact that Iran’s Supreme Leader has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons. This assertion by the president is not true. Such a fatwa has never been issued, and to this day no one has been able to show it, as MEMRI has detailed in five reports so far.
The following is the sixth MEMRI report, constituting an update about this nonexistent fatwa.
Introduction 

The Iranian regime has persisted in its attempts to deceive the West in the matter of a fatwa that it claims was issued by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei banning nuclear weapons. The deception focuses on both the fatwa's alleged date of issue and on its alleged content. This fatwa has never been presented by Iran and in fact does not exist. 

An Iranian international law expert published, on the BBC Persian website, an article stating that no such fatwa was ever issued.

One (Nonexistent) Fatwa – Many Dates

Following the continuing pressure on the Iranian regime to come up with Khamenei's (nonexistent) fatwa that allegedly bans nuclear weapons, the regime recently published, on one of the two websites where Khamenei's fatwas are published, a letter sent by Khamenei in April 2010 to the Tehran International Conference on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation. The letter, in Farsi, Arabic, English, and Spanish, was posted under the heading "New Fatwas." (see Appendix I). On February 26, 2015, Khamenei tweeted, "We consider the use of WMDs as Haraam [forbidden]" and linked to the letter on the website.[3]

The presentation of this letter as a (new) fatwa proves that no such fatwa was ever issued before; likewise, the letter to the conference does not constitute a religiously binding fatwa, but is a political statement with no religious significance.

Additionally, the nonexistent fatwa has over the years been given different dates of issue by different Iranian regime spokesmen, but none have ever actually presented it.[4]

In May 2012, before being elected president, Hassan Rohani claimed that the fatwa was issued in 2004, when was heading the Iranian delegation to the nuclear talks with the EU3. He also stated that it was he, Rohani, who had thought to present Khamenei's statements in a November 5, 2004 Friday sermon at Tehran University to the EU3 prior to the signing of the November 2004 Paris Agreement, as a fatwa to guarantee that Iran was not striving to develop nuclear weapons.[5]

As noted, the Khamenei sermon that Rohani presented as a fatwa was delivered in 2004, whereas Khamenei's letter to the conference, identified as a "new" fatwa on his website, is dated 2010. 

One (Nonexistent) Fatwa – Different Content

Furthermore, Khamenei, in his November 5, 2004 sermon, defined possessing, storing, and using nuclear weapons as "problematic" – not as "prohibited (haram)."[6] However, in his 2010 letter, Khamenei defines nuclear weapons as prohibited (haram; see Appendix I).[7]

Appendix I: Khamenei's Letter To The 2010 Tehran Conference

The following screenshot shows Khamenei's April 2010 letter to the Tehran International Conference on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, under the "New Fatwas" section of his fatwas website.


Source: Khamenei.ir, accessed March 23, 2015.


Appendix II: Iranian International Law Expert: "Where Is The Iranian Leader's Original Fatwa Banning Nuclear Weapons? And What Does It Say? In Reality, So Far No One Has Claimed To Have Actually Seen The Fatwa" 

On July 16, 2014, BBC Persian posted an article titled "Where Is The Iranian Leader's Fatwa Banning Nuclear Weapons?" by Iranian international law expert Bahman Aghai Diba. In it, Aghai Diba explained that the regime's failure to publish the actual text of the fatwa, coupled with its reliance on a letter by Khamenei to a conference in Tehran, constitute a breach of Shi'ite custom, according to which a published fatwa consists of a question posed to a senior ayatollah together with his reply. According to Aghai Diba, the failure to post the fatwa on Khamenei's various websites, where detailed descriptions of many of his other fatwas do appear, casts doubt on its existence, and prevents it from being examined for both date and content.[8]
 
The following are the main points of his article, as translated from the Persian:[9]

"The Iranian government states that the regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran does not aspire to use nuclear energy for military purposes, and in order to prove this point they refer to a fatwa or religious ruling by the Iranian Supreme Leader, which allegedly forbids [the use of] weapons of mass destruction. 

"Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has said that Iran will turn this fatwa into a law in order to reassure several states of the civilian nature [of its nuclear program]. The U.S. Secretary of State also said that this fatwa is important, but should become law. An Iranian foreign ministry spokesman [Afkham] also said, in the past, that the Islamic Republic intends to register this fatwa with the UN.

"But where is the Iranian leader's original fatwa banning nuclear weapons? And what does it say? In reality, so far no one has claimed to have actually seen the fatwa.

"Fatwas have a certain status in Islamic jurisprudence. They have formatting and content requirements. The fatwas are usually in the form of a question asked of a marja' taqlid [the highest jurisprudential authority in Shi'a Islam], and the marja'a gives an answer that is based on Islamic religious sources.

"Keeping in mind that the Iranian leader's fatwa banning nuclear weapons has never been published anywhere, it is not clear what its format and content are. Who asked the question ([i.e.] an ordinary person or a jurist[?]) and what formulas and rules from Islamic religious law were used in order to reply to it? For example, does the word haram [forbidden] appear in it, or are conditions for this ban spelled out? 

"In accordance with the accepted definition of a fatwa (according to the explanation presented in the existing sources that are known to all), [a fatwa] is: 'A publicly applicable religious law concerning a particular issue that is derived from the four sources [of Islamic law]: the Koran, the Sunnah [i.e. the traditions], ijma [consensus among the clerics], and a logical interpretation of the issue by the marja'. 

"It is said that Khamenei's fatwa banning nuclear weapons was issued somewhere around 2005. On October 31, 2013, Iranian Majlis speaker Ali Larijani said that Iran's Supreme Leader has banned the use of nuclear weapons, and the Iranian government wants to register this [fatwa] as a document in the U.N. This is evidence that at least as of that date this fatwa had not been presented in the form of a document to the U.N. At the same time, there is no precedent in history of the registration of such a fatwa in the U.N. 

"When a fatwa is issued by the marja' taqlid, this religious edict reaches the knowledge of the public by various channels. In this day and age, when clerics have extensive means [to publish] both privately and publicly, their fatwas are published on multiple websites, including the official websites of these maraji'. Leader Khamenei's rulings and fatwas are presented on his personal and official websites, on almost every subject, in detail and in a very organized manner, and hundreds of other elements [in Iran] also reiterate these fatwas.

"These edicts are [also] organized according to words, languages, and topics. However, such an important fatwa – a fatwa that bans nuclear weapons – on which many high-ranking officials of the Islamic Republic rely appears nowhere in the abovementioned sources. Its text is not found on any website, nor in any of the numerous collections of the Supreme Leader's publications that are published by the Center for Preserving and Publishing the Works of the Leader, nor in any language. 

"However, the inaccessibility of this fatwa prevents it from being examined in order to determine what the ban on weapons of mass destruction is based on. What extent of mass destruction does it include? When the Iranians and the Iraqis were killed extensively during the Iran-Iraq War (especially owing to Iran's 'human wave' strategy [in which Iran sent masses across minefields]), no marja', including Ayatollah [Ruhollah] Khomeini, issued a fatwa or order to prevent all this slaughter or to define this destruction and slaughter as un-Islamic.

"Ayatollah Khomeini never declared the Iraqi nuclear project 'un-Islamic,' even though it was clearly intended for military use (this [Iraqi] project was stopped by Israel's bombing of the Iraqi nuclear facilities). 

"Some sources have tried to say that Khamenei's fatwa is his April 4, 2010 letter to the Disarmament Conference in Tehran, in which he condemned the use of weapons of mass destruction, calling them 'a violation of human rights and a clear example of war crimes.' But this claim is unacceptable, because this letter is not considered a fatwa. 

"The fatwa banning nuclear weapons by Iran's Supreme Leader remains shrouded in fog."
Endnotes:
[1] Whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/04/02/statement-president-framework-prevent-iran-obtaining-nuclear-weapon, April 2, 2015.
[3] Twitter.com/Khamenei_ir, February 26, 2015; Farsi.khamenei.ir/treatise-content?id=228&pid=228&tid=-1. Both accessed March 23, 2015.
[8] As noted in this paper, Aghai Diba's article was published in July 2014, and the alleged fatwa was posted in the "New Fatwas" section on Khamenei's fatwa website only after that.  
[9] BBC Persian, July 16, 2014.

MEMRI

Source: http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/8508.htm

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