Sunday, September 25, 2016

Dangerous Plans Hatched by Obama and UN for Refugee Resettlement - Joseph Klein




by Joseph Klein

President Obama's going away gift to the American people: an open door to more refugees from terrorist-infested countries.

President Obama’s State Department finally admitted the obvious regarding ISIS terrorists embedding themselves in the refugee flow from the Middle East. "I wouldn't debate the fact that there's the potential for ISIS terrorists to try to insert themselves, and we see that in some of the refugee camps in Jordan and in Turkey, where they try to insert themselves into the population," State Department spokesman John Kirby said on "Fox and Friends" on September 21st.  Then Kirby tried to assure Americans that the “vetting process, while not perfect, is a very, very stringent.”

The Obama administration cannot even properly handle immigrants due for deportation who are already in the country. How can we possibly believe that it can reliably vet individuals from Syria and other terrorist infested countries where comprehensive accurate data regarding such individuals are sorely lacking?

For example, according to a report released on September 19th by the Homeland Security Department's inspector general, hundreds of immigrants were improperly granted citizenship despite missing fingerprint records. They were from "special interest countries" – countries of particular concern for national security reasons. 

Nevertheless, President Obama is making the admission of more refugees and migrants his going away gift to the American people.  He has announced that the United States will welcome even more refugees from around the world, increasing the number of people the U.S. receives by 40 percent over the next two years, to 100,000 in 2017. He also wants to admit more Syrian refugees in particular, which Hillary Clinton has already announced she would do if elected president.

Obama convened a Leaders Summit on the Global Refugee Crisis at the United Nations headquarters in New York on September 20th, co-sponsored by Canada, Ethiopia, Germany, Jordan, Mexico and Sweden. Its purpose was to appeal to governments to pledge significant new resettlement and financial commitments regarding refugees.

The day before Obama’s meeting, the UN General Assembly hosted its own High-Level Summit on Refugees and Migrants at which the UN member states adopted the “New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants.”  This consensus document was intended to express the political will of world leaders to protect the rights of refugees and migrants and share responsibility for large movements on a global scale. They committed to finding new homes for all refugees identified by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) as needing resettlement, as well as to expand the opportunities for refugees to relocate to other countries through sponsored job or education schemes. They also agreed to start negotiations for the purpose of adopting a global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration in 2018 and merged the International Organization for Migration (IOM) into the UN system to strengthen global governance of migration among countries.

As usual with aspirational UN documents of this kind, it was very general – so general, in fact, that it did not even contain a specific reference to the plight of the Syrian refugees. That is just as well, considering that the UN’s Special Adviser on the Summit on Addressing Large Movements of Refugees and Migrants, Karen Koning AbuZayd, has blamed Israel for the chaos in the Middle East region. “Israel’s behind all of this,” she claimed in an interview with the Middle East Monitor. “That’s what they want; to break up the Arab world and take more control.” Ms. AbuZayd first denied to me that she had said any such thing and then, when confronted with the article, claimed that she was misquoted. She pointedly declined my request to clarify her thoughts on the specific countries in the Middle East region she believes are at least partially responsible for exacerbating the refugee crisis.

President Obama was looking for more specific commitments at his summit, focusing only on the refugee crisis which has reached a level not seen since World War II. Sixty-five million people, including more than 21 million refugees who have fled their countries, have been displaced by “war, ethnic tensions, or persecution,” he said. Yet in a perfect example of Obama’s case of  delusional cognitive dissonance, he had told the General Assembly earlier in his annual address that the world today “is by many measures less violent and more prosperous than ever before.”

President Obama wanted his Leaders Summit to produce concrete pledges of increased resettlements of refugees beyond the countries already shouldering the major burdens of the Syrian refugee outflow, such as Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. He also wanted countries to pledge more financial assistance to help refugees resettle and integrate into their host societies. At least in terms of pledges, there appears to have been some measure of success. According to Obama’s UN Ambassador Samantha Power, the summit participants increased their total 2016 financial contributions to UN appeals and international humanitarian groups by approximately $4.5 billion and created roughly 360,000 formal refugee resettlement slots or alternate lawful pathways for refugee admissions. However, as Ambassador Power acknowledged, “countries have a bad habit of coming to pledging conferences and making commitments and then not delivering on those commitments.”

Perhaps as an antidote to his failed policies in the Middle East and Libya, which helped give rise to a re-emergent ISIS spreading its jihadist brand of terrorism globally and helped spark the refugee crisis, President Obama decided to latch on to the refugee issue as his swan song.

“It’s a test of our international system where all nations ought to share in our collective responsibilities,” Obama said as the self-appointed refugee welfare pitchman. “It is a crisis of our shared security.”

Obama’s problem, however, is that when he talks about “shared security” and “collective responsibilities,” he glides over the first priority of the leader of any nation including his own – the security of its people.  The Obama administration is simply incapable of ensuring that refugees resettled in communities across the United States do not pose terror threats. And Obama surely failed to provide such assurance when he bizarrely stated at his Leaders Summit on Refugees that“refugees are subject to more rigorous screening than the average tourist.” Not exactly a high bar to exceed.

Obama then raised his usual strawman arguments to attack the critics of his expanded refugee expansion program. He said “if we were to turn refugees away simply because of their background or religion, or, for example, because they are Muslim, then we would be reinforcing terrorist propaganda that nations like my own are somehow opposed to Islam, which is an ugly lie that must be rejected in all of our countries by upholding the values of pluralism and diversity.”

Obama made his customary false moral equivalence argument, comparing legitimate concerns about opening up our borders to thousands of new refugees from terrorist infested areas of the world, without robust vetting procedures in place first, to “turning away Jews fleeing Nazi Germany.”

Liberals have often used this false analogy of Syrian refugees to Jewish refugees escaping Nazi genocide. Ian Tuttle answered it with devastating precision in aNational Review article last November:

“There was no international conspiracy of German Jews in the 1930s attempting to carry out daily attacks on civilians on several continents. No self-identifying Jews in the early 20th century were randomly massacring European citizens in magazine offices and concert halls.”

Moreover, Christians constitute a religious minority in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East who have been the amongst the most targeted victims of religious persecution and genocide. Yet President Obama has sharply criticized the suggestion that persecuted Christians be given preference for admission as refugees. Only about 1 percent of the total number of Syrian refugees admitted to the United States are Christian. Since the beginning of the Syrian conflict, approximately 96% of the Syrian refugees admitted to the United States by the Obama administration have been Sunni Muslims. While many of them may have left a war-torn country in search of a better life, they were not victims of religious persecution, as Christians continue to be. Therefore, it is questionable whether they should even be considered eligible for refugee status.

It is neither xenophobic nor racist to raise legitimate concerns about personal safety resulting from an ill-conceived refugee policy. The jihadist terrorist attacks by Muslim immigrants from Somalia and Afghanistan, which occurred in Minnesota and the New York metropolitan area last weekend, only heighten those concerns. The dramatic increase of jihadist terrorist attacks in Western Europe also sets off alarm bells. It is undeniable that the European countries which have admitted the most refugees and migrants from Syria, North Africa and other areas beset constantly by jihadist terrorism have been the countries that have experienced the biggest rise in jihadist terrorist attacks at home.

Moreover, while Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey have taken in many Syrian refugees to their credit, it is a legitimate question to ask why wealthy Gulf States such as Qatar have taken in so few. After all, Qatar in particular has contributed to the destabilization of Syria in the first place by funding and arming radical Islamists.

It would make far more sense for Muslims displaced by the war in Syria to resettle in countries in their own region where they are more likely to assimilate into the majority Muslim populations. And they would be closer to their homes in Syria, so that if conditions improve sufficiently they can more easily return safely.  

Until we have a foolproof vetting system in place that keeps out self-identified refugees who have shown any signs of jihadist tendencies, the admission of refugees and migrants from Syria and other terrorist infested countries should be suspended.


Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam.

Source:  http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264282/dangerous-plans-hatched-obama-and-un-refugee-joseph-klein

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Trump Sees the Jihadist Trojan Horse - Ted Belman




by Ted Belman

In June of this year Donald Trump recognized the danger of Muslim migration and said, “This could be the all-time great Trojan horse.” And so it is but the US elites refuse to recognize it.

Ever wonder why there are so many Muslims and Muslim countries in the world? Over the millennia many countries were conquered, but didn't remain Persian or Greek or Roman as the case may be. You see, the countries conquered in the name of Islam, became and remained Islamic. For example Pakistan, part of India, and Malaysia both were Hindu; Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Egypt and N. Africa were Christian; Afghanistan was Buddhist. They are all Islamic now.

This transformation was not by chance but by design. All these countries were conquered by force, then shorn of their wealth and many of their women. Then the Muslim conquerors introduced Sharia and continued fighting the local inhabitants. The inhabitants were either forced to convert or accorded Dhimmi status. As time went on all cultures submitted and eventually became Islamic.

The advance of Islam was finally reversed in Spain and stopped at the Gates of Vienna in 1642. Thereafter the power of Islam went into decline but other than Spain, it never lost its hold on the people it conquered.  This decline was reversed in the Twentieth Century when Arabs became wealthy as a result of their vast oil reserves. This wealth was then deployed to conquer the west, not by Violent Jihad, but by Stealth Jihad.

This design was referred to as The Islamic Doctrine. It consists of Koran (14%) which stipulates that “there is no god but ALLAH and Mohammed is his messenger”, Sira, Mohammed’s biography (26%) and Hadiths, traditions, (60%). There are two different Korans combined into one, the Mecca Koran and the Medina Koran.

Dr. Moorthy Muthuswamy writes,
About sixty-one percent of the contents of the Koran are found to speak ill of the unbelievers or call for their violent conquest; at best only 2.6 percent of the verses of the Koran are noted to show goodwill toward humanity. About seventy-five percent of Muhammad’s biography (Sira) consists of jihad waged on unbelievers.
Mohammed started as a religious preacher in Mecca. It was during this period that the Koran 2:256 stipulated. “There is no compulsion in religion” and 109:1 stipulated “You have your religion I have mine.” Ultimately he was chased out of Mecca and migrated with his followers to Medina.

Then began the Jihad period.  From then on people were forced to convert under pain of death or were forced to live as Dhimmis (second class citizens) and pay (Jizya) for the privilege of living there.  

This Jihad continued until there was no more discord.
Koran 2:193. “Fight them (Kafirs) until there is no more discord and the religion of Allah reigns absolute but if they submit, then only fight those who do wrong.”
Thus it continues until everyone in the territory has submitted to Islam, accepts Dhimmi status and pays Jizya.

Quotes from the Qur'an and Hadith on war, violence, infidels, and unbelievers may be found here. For example:
Ayhat 8:12, “I shall cast terror into the hearts of those who are bent on denying the truth; strike, then, their necks, [O believers,] and strike off every one of their finger-tips!"
Sura 9:5,29,41. “Slay the idolators [non-Muslims] wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the last Day…. Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! “
This inconsistency in the Koran is resolved by the doctrine of abrogation, wherein the Medina principles abrogate the Mecca principles.

Migration intends to overtake the host country through this doctrine. It is driven by Islam’s proscription against assimilation, and its will to dominate.

51% of the Koran concerns itself with the Kafir. It is a political doctrine not a religious one. There is no golden rule. Kafirs are to be subjugated. Muslims are to dominate.

Dr Bill Warner summarizes this as follows:
Migration is part of the doctrine of jihad. Migration is so important that the Islamic calendar is based upon the Hijra, Mohammed’s migration from Mecca to Medina. Why? Because it was migration that lead to the creation of jihad in Medina. And it was jihad that made Islam triumphant.
In the past Muslims tended to stay in Islamic countries. Today, the new politics is to migrate to Kafir lands and immerse themselves in local politics. This is the jihad of money, writing and speech. Their politics is to bring the Sharia to Kafir culture. An example is using Islamic money is to build departments in universities that will support Sharia and never criticize Islam.
To understand how they do it, read 4 Stages of Islamic Conquest.

Unfortunately this migration is encouraged by globalist leaders such as Chancellor Merkel and President Obama. And of course, Hillary Clinton aspires to be one of them.

Professor Belhaj explains elites “encourage migration and accommodate Islam”, and described the harmony between Muslim migrants and neoliberalism as “structural, and not accidental”.  “Migration is useful for the neo-liberal model of the borderless, minimal, global society…”

The Muslim Brotherhood met in 1991 and produced a document which set out its strategic goals for North America. The document was entered as evidence in the 2008 Holyland Terror Funding Trial. It contained among other things, the following paragraphs:
Enablement of Islam in North America, meaning: establishing an effective and a stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood which adopts Muslims’ causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at unifying and directing Muslims’ efforts, presents Islam as a civilization alternative, and supports the global Islamic State wherever it is.
...the Movement must plan and struggle to obtain "the keys" and the tools of this process in carry out [sic] this grand mission as a 'Civilization Jihadist' responsibility.
The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…
[W]e must possess a mastery of the art of “coalitions,” the art of “absorption” and the principles of “cooperation.”
Pres Obama and Secretary Clinton, upon taking office, embraced the Muslim Brotherhood and worked with them to depose Mubarak and Assad. Luckily General al Sisi reversed their victory in Egypt and Assad, with the help of Iran and Russia, thwarted their plans in Syria.

In “Why is Obama in Bed with the Muslim Brotherhood?” I wrote “The alliance between the Obama administration and the Muslim Brotherhood is the cornerstone of Obama’s New Middle East policy.”

Capt. Joseph R. John, USN (Ret), the Chairman of Combat Veterans for Congress PAC, wrote in June 2016:
Members of the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, and MPAC have sinister goals that are not in support of the US Constitution or The Bill of Rights.  They have become a very dangerous “Fifth Column” in the United States, appointed by Obama to very high and sensitive positions in the US Government agencies. 
For nearly 8 years Obama has been filling the Washington bureaucracy including DHS, the CIA, DOD, the National Security Council, the White House, the State Department, every US Intelligence Agency, and the US Armed Forces with thousands of members of the CAIR, MPAC, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other Muslim Brotherhood front groups.
In June of this year Donald Trump recognized the danger of Muslim migration and said, “This could be the all-time great Trojan horse.” And so it is but the US elites refuse to recognize it.

On August 15/16 he gave a speech on immigration and terrorism in which he clarified;
A Trump Administration will establish a clear principle that will govern all decisions pertaining to immigration: we should only admit into this country those who share our values and respect our people.

In the Cold War, we had an ideological screening test. The time is overdue to develop a new screening test for the threats we face today.

In addition to screening out all members or sympathizers of terrorist groups, we must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles – or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law.

Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country.
So you can see, rather that limiting his policy to weeding out terrorists, he advocates weeding out Jihadists who want to subjugate America to Islam. This is not racism. It is common sense.

Trump has been stressing that Hillary Clinton wants to let in 550% more refugees than the 10,000 Obama let in. In response I wrote “Don’t be duped about Muslim migration to the US”  in which I pointed out that the problem is much bigger and that no distinction should be made between refugees and immigrants.

According to a report highlighted by Megyn Kelly,
According to the Report, Obama has issued over 832,000 green cards to Muslim majority countries in his first 6 years of his presidency. In addition, 482,000 Muslims overstayed their visas and are not being sent back. These Muslims support Sharia  to an astonishing degree. In Afghanistan 99%, in Iraq 91% and in Pakistan 70%. When in the US 70% vote Democrat.
And now Obama is intending to allow in another 1 million Muslims.
Jewish Americans are very supportive of allowing such numbers into the US. They argue either we have a duty to do so or that Jews should be more welcoming given the history of America banning Jewish immigration in the thirties and forties. But this analogy doesn’t hold up at all. Jews were no threat to Americans personally and to their values, whereas the Muslims are both. Furthermore Muslims are very anti-Semitic and very anti-Israel. The Muslims have many other countries they could go to. The Jews had no other country willing to take them in.  Jews are, in effect, welcoming their enemies into the country.

As for a duty to allow Muslim immigration or any immigration, there is none.
We need Donald Trump.


Ted Belman

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/09/trump_sees_the_jihadist_trojan_horse_.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

The Mark of Soros: Charlotte, North Carolina - Clarice Feldman




by Clarice Feldman

In Charlotte they have regularly referred to the thugs as “protestors” and failed to fully publicize how awful their behavior has been.

Tomorrow night we’ll see the much-awaited matchup one-on-one “debate” between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Her staff is working with the debate commission to erase height and stamina advantages of her opponent. They asked that the debate be by seated opponents which was refused as was their effort to allow her to stand on a hidden stool. Her podium will be lowered though so when the camera sweeps from candidate to candidate viewers might not notice he is considerably taller than she.

Outside of the debate hall in Charlotte, North Carolina, another drama is taking place. Apparently "Black Lives Matters" needs a translation: To most of the rioters it means New Free Nikes Matter. As the first child in the family and the daughter of a small businessman who grew up in a working class community, I’m with John Schindler who tweeted this week, “Like Pier Pasolini, I am always on the side of the police, unless proven otherwise. Class matters. Order matters, Criminal filth does not.”

The media airbrush the mayhem, if not actually inciting it by biased coverage. They did it in the Trayvon Martin case as American Thinker’s Jack Cashill detailed this past Friday.

In Charlotte they have regularly referred to the thugs as “protestors” and failed to fully publicize how awful their behavior has been. Here are some examples you won’t see on your news programs: Rioters attacked an elderly homeless man and beat a helpless man in parking garage and pulled off and stole his pants to further humiliate him. 

Reports are in of stealing and looting on a significantly large scale, hijacking cars and trucks and terrifying their occupants, blocking streets and threatening to spread the mayhem outside the city limits. BLM would in a lawful society be subject to criminal racketeering and conspiracy charges, Instead, Attorney General Loretta Lynch defended the demonstrators as people exercising their constitutional rights to peaceful protest to create change. “We hear your voices and we feel your pain."

It’s unsurprising that the attorney general is not acting as she should. We just learned this week through late released documents of Hillary Clinton’s emails that the president who had asserted he first learned of her illegal use of a private unsecured email server in the newspapers had himself sent her mail on it using a pseudonym. It shows how unserious they all are about national security and the rule of law. We also learned this week that the FBI had granted immunity to five of Hillary’s closest aides. Or, as the Mark Twain of Twitter, Iowahawk, David Burge, said: “Breaking: FBI gives Clinton immunity in Clinton investigation”. Add this to the unprecedented and grossly improper meeting between Lynch and Bill Clinton before FBI head Comey announced his decision, we know the fix was in from the outset.

You have no Department of Justice. You have no FBI.

What of the local police? In Los Angeles cops have been told to run away from armed suspects. In Charlotte, as in the prior cases of race riots in recent years, the DOJ has sent in troops which in the past stirred up the crowds, interfered with standard police operations and did what they could to keep the embers lit, innocent men prosecuted on no basis and moving us closer and closer to federal control of local policing -- by the most lawless of lawmen,

It’s not only the government behind this immiseration of our poorest communities for presumed political advantage, It is the Democratic party’s money bags, billionaire George Soros, who has contributed millions to Hillary and her party, who wants open borders and a recasting of the USA into his insane version  of it.  
…here’s a solitary man at the financial center of the Ferguson protest movement. No, it’s not victim Michael Brown or Officer Darren Wilson. It’s not even the Rev. Al Sharpton, despite his ubiquitous campaign on TV and the streets.
Rather, it’s liberal billionaire George Soros, who has built a business empire that dominates across the ocean in Europe while forging a political machine powered by nonprofit foundations that impacts American politics and policy, not unlike what he did with MoveOn.org.
Mr. Soros spurred the Ferguson protest movement through years of funding and mobilizing groups across the U.S., according to interviews with key players and financial records reviewed by The Washington Times.
In all, Mr. Soros gave at least $33 million in one year to support already-established groups that emboldened the grass-roots, on-the-ground activists in Ferguson, according to the most recent tax filings of his nonprofit Open Society Foundations.
The financial tether from Mr. Soros to the activist groups gave rise to a combustible protest movement that transformed a one-day criminal event in Missouri into a 24-hour-a-day national cause celebre.
Organizers and protestors were bussed in there as they have been in Charlotte -- where police say 70% of the people arrested were from out of state.

It always takes time to sort out conflicting reports about incidents such as the death of Keith Lamont Scott in Charlotte but the fact is that he was shot by a black policeman when he refused to drop his gun. He had a gun, not a book in his hand when he was shot, a gun which police reported on Saturday had his fingerprints on it. There was PCP in his car and he had a prior string of arrests -- at least one for shooting at police in 2005. 

This has followed the usual pattern -- the “honor student”, “family man” “hands up don’t shoot”, false witness narratives all evaporated in the light of day. And yet the press keeps showing the video his wife took in which she shouts repeatedly he had no gun and (she was going to sue if he was killed in the fray).

In the meantime, local homes and businesses have been destroyed, one black protestor murdered another in cold blood and Soros and his anointed candidate keep doing well by doing evil.

It’s hard to fight such a well-funded propaganda effort with facts, but let me try with the help of Zero Hedge:
What is most disturbing is that behind the pent up rage and thuggish violence, dressed up in the socially-acceptable package of "black lives matter" is the reality that white violence is the last thing blacks should be "protesting."
Milo Yiannopoulos details even more from the statistical evidence in this short but compelling video:  



The big lies propagated by Soros on whose shoulders Hillary stands continues on. She’s part of what Tom Lipscomb characterizes as a gangster regime doing everything it can to expand its reach.

Do these developments sound familiar to those aware of modern world history? They do to my friend Alex Bensky, who notes that if we criticize Obama we are charged with “evil motives”. We have a government which is suppressing the opposition by every means possible, (including misusing supposedly neutral agencies like the IRS, FBI, and DoJ), makes corporate profits depend on (corrupted by cash) government approval, not market-based competition, and now gives “support for and approval of mob intimidation and violence to advance political ends.”

At any rate, journalists are probably too busy this Sunday to bother with such questions today. They are already drafting their copy of how splendidly -- ”strong” is likely to be their descriptor of choice if she doesn’t collapse at her mini podium -- Hillary performed in the debate taking place tomorrow night.


Clarice Feldman

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/09/the_mark_of_soros_charlotte_north_carolina.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Trump to Netanyahu: I’ll recognize undivided Jerusalem if president - Times of Israel Staff, AP




by Times of Israel Staff, AP

Prime Minister meets Republican candidate at his Manhattan office, will sit down with Hillary Clinton later Sunday



Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump meeting at the Trump Tower in New York, September 25, 2016. (Prime Minister's Office)
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump meeting at the Trump Tower in New York, September 25, 2016. (Kobi Gideon/GPO)

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Sunday that if elected president, he would recognize Jerusalem as the “undivided capital” of Israel.

Donald Trump’s camp said the candidate and Netanyahu discussed a wide variety of issues, including Israel’s experiences in building walls, during a meeting between the two at the billionaire businessman’s office in Manhattan, New York. Trump vowed to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital, in the event he is elected. 

“Mr. Trump said that under a Trump administration, there will be extraordinary strategic, technological, military and intelligence cooperation between the two countries. Mr. Trump recognized Israel as a vital partner of the United States in the global war against radical Islamic terrorism,” a statement from the Trump campaign read. “Mr. Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu discussed at length Israel’s successful experience with a security fence that helped secure its borders.”

“Mr. Trump acknowledged that Jerusalem has been the eternal capital of the Jewish People for over 3,000 years, and that the United States, under a Trump administration, will finally accept the long-standing Congressional mandate to recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of the State of Israel,” the statement added.

Trump also said the two discussed “at length the nuclear deal with Iran, the battle against ISIS and many other regional security concerns.”

“Mr. Trump recognized that Israel and its citizens have suffered far too long on the front lines of Islamic terrorism. He agreed with Prime Minister Netanyahu that the Israeli people want a just and lasting peace with their neighbors, but that peace will only come when the Palestinians renounce hatred and violence and accept Israel as a Jewish State,” according to the release.

The two convened for an hour and 20 minutes in Trump Tower, in Manhattan.

Netanyahu’s bureau released a statement saying the prime minister “thanked Mr. Trump for his friendship and support of Israel.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump meeting at the Trump Tower in New York, September 25, 2016. (Kobi Gideon/GPO)
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump meeting at the Trump Tower in New York, September 25, 2016. (Kobi Gideon/GPO)

“Prime Minister Netanyahu presented to Mr. Trump Israel’s stance regarding regional issues related to Israel’s security and its efforts to bring peace and stability to the region,” the prime minister’s statement read.

Pictures released by the Prime Minister’s Office show the two shaking hands and smiling in Trump’s gilded home in the Trump Tower.

Trump had seemed to suggest earlier in his campaign that he would not support military aid to Israel or other countries, but the statement seems to walk that back.

“Mr. Trump agreed that the military assistance provided to Israel and missile defense cooperation with Israel are an excellent investment for America,” the statement reads.

Present at the meeting with the two were also envoy to the US Ron Dermer and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, an Orthodox Jew who advises the candidate on Israel.

Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton was expected to meet Netanyahu later on Sunday. Both meetings had the potential to set the tone for relations between the allied countries during the next presidential administration.

Both meetings were closed to the press.

Sources close to Netanyahu said he is meeting the candidates in their homes or offices because he appreciates they are busy ahead of the presidential debate, scheduled for tomorrow.

Trump tweeted Sunday that he was “looking forward to” his meeting with Netanyahu at Trump Tower, where the candidate lives. In meeting both candidates, the Israeli leader was seeking to project neutrality this time after perceptions arose that he favored Mitt Romney over President Barack Obama in 2012.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump in Roanoke, Virginia on September 24, 2016 and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton September 21, 2016 in Orlando, Florida. (AFP)
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump in Roanoke, Virginia on September 24, 2016 and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton September 21, 2016 in Orlando, Florida. (AFP)

According to Israeli sources, the meetings were set up after the Trump campaign spoke to Netanyahu’s staff on Friday. Netanyahu’s office then reached out to the Clinton campaign in a bid to avoid the appearance of favoring the GOP candidate.

A senior Israeli official in New York said Thursday that neither Clinton nor Trump had asked to meet with Netanyahu, according to a Bloomberg report.

The one-on-one discussions will follow what was likely Netanyahu’s final meeting with Obama last week, capping what has been a sometimes rocky relationship between the leaders of the two allies.

US President Barack Obama, right, shakes hands with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a bilateral meeting in New York, September 21, 2016. (AFP/Jim Watson)
US President Barack Obama, right, shakes hands with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a bilateral meeting in New York, September 21, 2016. (AFP/Jim Watson)

Trump has been a fierce critic of the Iran nuclear agreement and promised during a speech to AIPAC earlier this year that he would deepen ties between the two countries if he were elected president, adding the days of “treating Israel like a second-class citizen will end on day one.” But he also raised eyebrows when he questioned Israel’s commitment to a peace deal last year and said he didn’t want to show any bias in favor of one side or the other.

Clinton has supported a negotiated two-state solution in the region, vowed to enforce the Iran nuclear agreement and help defend Israel’s security. The former secretary of state suggested in an interview with Israel’s Channel 2 earlier this month that the Islamic State group was “rooting for Donald Trump’s victory” and he had helped strengthen the hands of extremists by his provocative statements about Muslims.

The meetings will also come after the US recently completed a 10-year, $38-billion military aid package for Israel. Clinton said in a statement that it would help “solidify and chart a course for the US-Israeli defense relationship in the 21st century as we face a range of common challenges.”

Raphael Ahren contributed to this report. 


Times of Israel Staff, AP

Source: http://www.timesofisrael.com/pm-meets-trump-in-ny-will-sit-down-with-clinton-later/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Election Success for Jordan’s Islamists: Cause for Concern? - Ran Meir




by Ran Meir

The September 20 election signals a return to parliament for Islamist lawmakers, but this could mean increased stability for the country.

Jordanian Islamists will return to parliament after a 10-year hiatus following an election on September 20. It‘s not yet clear how many seats the Islamist bloc will take, however, their return to office does not necessarily mean problems for the monarchy.

The Islamists boycotted the polls in 2010 and 2013 arguing that the electoral system worked against their interests. A change in the voting system led the group to stand for election this time around.

In an election that would seem odd to most Westerners, some 226 parties competed for just 130 seats in the legislature.

The election took place in the shadow of rising unemployment, fears of a spillover of fighting from Syria and Iraq and the hosting of myriad refugees.

Initial results suggest the National Coalition for Reform bloc (a joint list with the Islamist party, the Islamic Action Front, as the largest member) will take some 13-16 seats. The bloc is likely to be the largest opposition bloc in the new parliament. 

The question is whether or not this return poses a threat to King Abdullah.

Initially there does not appear to be a direct threat – indeed this might even create greater stability in the Hashemite kingdom.

The vote was for the lower house, whose main functions are to pass laws, approve the state budget and show confidence in the government. However, the upper house in parliament has seniority and can block legislation that emanates from the lower house. The upper house and government are appointed by Abdullah, an absolute monarch.

The king also controls the appointment of judges and intelligence officials without requiring governmental approval.

The monarch derives his power from tribal loyalty and some officials from the Islamic Action Front are members of these tribes. There is a common interest, therefore, in Islamist participations in the elections.

Islamists hoped the Arab Spring coupled with the boycott of the previous elections would increase their popularity, while diminishing the popularity of the king. However, with time, they understood Abdullah remained strong, while they were losing ground. 

Simultaneously, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Libya were in decline.

Jordan’s Islamists understood they now have the opportunity to return to the political fore to be a more fighting opposition.

Abdullah told the U.N. General Assembly last week the election was a true victory given current events in Jordan and the surrounding countries. Both he and Queen Rania said they welcomed the participation of Islamists in the election.

Initial analysis suggests Abdullah is the big winner here because Islamist participation in the elections shows they realize they have to participate in a system of government which is monarch-dominated. Essentially, they have given the monarchy a renewed vote of confidence.

With the Islamists in parliament, the king will also be able to better monitor Islamist activities in the country.

All in all, at least in the short term, King Abdullah can heave a sigh of relief, particularly as the Islamist bloc was tipped to win as many as 20 seats. And while the terror threat is never far away from Jordan, on the political level, Abdullah knows he has stability for some time to come.


Ran Meir is Clarion Project's Arab Affairs Analyst

Source: http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/ran-meir

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Is Obama's 'Narrative Battle' with ISIS or Reality? - Raymond Ibrahim




by Raymond Ibrahim

The latest lies and strawman arguments meant to defend Islam.



Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

According to White House press secretary Josh Earnest, “When it comes to ISIL, we are in a fight—a narrative fight with them. A narrative battle.”  Earnest said this the day after two separate bombings occurred in New York, and an ISIS-linked Muslim went on a stabbing spree in Minnesota.  Obama’ spokesman later elaborated:

What is important in the context of political debate is to remember ISIL is trying to assert a narrative, that they represent the religion of Islam in a war against the west and in a war against the United States. That is mythology. That is falsehood. That is not true. That is bankrupt ideology they are trying to wrap in the cloak of Islam.
This, of course, is a strawman argument: the real question isn’t whether ISIS “represents” Islam, but whether ISIS is a byproduct of Islam.  And this question can easily be answered by looking not to ISIS but Islam.  One can point to Islamic doctrines that unequivocally justify ISIS behavior; one can point to the whole of Islamic history, nearly 14 centuries of ISIS precedents.

Or, if these two options are deemed too abstract, one can simply point to the fact that everyday Muslims all around the world are behaving just like ISIS.

For example, Muslims—of all races, nationalities, languages, and socio-political and economic circumstances, in Arab, African, Central and East Asian nations—claim the lions’ share of Christian persecution; 41 of the 50 worst nations to be Christian in are Islamic.  In these countries, Muslim individuals, mobs, clerics, politicians, police, soldiers, judges, even family members—none of whom are affiliated with ISIS (other than by religion)—abuse and sometimes slaughter Christians, abduct, enslave and rape their women and children, ban or bomb churches, and kill blasphemers and apostates.

Anyone who doubts this can access my monthly “Muslim Persecution of Christians” reports and review the nonstop persecution and carnage committed by “everyday” Muslims—not ISIS—against Christians.  Each monthly report (there are currently 60, stretching back to July 2011) contains dozens of atrocities, most of which if committed by Christians against Muslims would receive nonstop media coverage in America.

Or consider a Pew poll which found that, in 11 countries alone, at least 63 million and as many as 287 million Muslims support ISIS.  Similarly, 81% of respondents to an Arabic language Al Jazeera poll supported the Islamic State.

Do all these hundreds of millions of Muslims support the Islamic State because they’ve been suckered into its “narrative”—or even more silly, because we have—or do they support ISIS because it reflects the same supremacist Islam that they know and practice, one that preaches hate and violence for all infidels, as America’s good friends and allies, the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar—not ISIS—are on record proclaiming?

It is this phenomenon, that Muslims the world over—and not just this or that terrorist group that “has nothing to do with Islam”—are exhibiting hostility for and terrorizing non-Muslims that the Obama administration and its mainstream media allies are committed to suppressing.  Otherwise the unthinkable could happen: people might connect the dots and understand that ISIS isn’t mangling Islam but rather Islam is mangling the minds of Muslims all over the world.

Hence why White House spokesman Josh Earnest can adamantly dismiss 14 centuries of Islamic history, doctrine, and behavior that mirrors ISIS: “That is mythology. That is falsehood. That is not true.” Hence why U.S. media coverage for one dead gorilla was six times greater than media coverage for 21 Christians whose heads were carved off for refusing to recant their faith.

The powers-that-be prefer that the debate—the “narrative”—be restricted to ISIS, so that the group appears as an aberration to Islam.  Acknowledging that untold millions of Muslims are engaged in similar behavior leads to a much more troubling narrative with vast implications.

Even so, until this ugly truth is accepted, countless more innocents—including born Muslims who seek to break free from Islam—will continue to suffer. 


Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, a Judith Friedman Rosen Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum and a CBN News contributor. He is the author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (2013) and The Al Qaeda Reader (2007).

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264281/obamas-narrative-battle-isis-or-reality-raymond-ibrahim

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Saturday, September 24, 2016

France: The Great Wall of Calais - Soeren Kern




by Soeren Kern

In recent months, masked gangs of people smugglers armed with knives, bats and tire irons have forced truck drivers to stop so that migrants can board their vehicles.

  • Around 200 migrants from Calais, the principal ferry crossing point between France and England, are successfully smuggled into Britain each week, according to police estimates cited by the Telegraph.
  • "Before, it was just attempts to get on trucks. Now there is looting and willful destruction, tarpaulins are slashed, goods stolen or destroyed. Drivers go to work with fear in their bellies and the economic consequences are severe." — David Sagnard, president of France's truck drivers' federation.
  • "They want to go to England because they can expect better conditions on arrival there than anywhere else in Europe or even internationally. ... They can easily find work outside the formal economy..." — Natacha Bouchart, Mayor of Calais.
  • "The asylum seekers could apply for protection in France or the European country they first landed in... they only reached Calais by crossing French borders. France is part of the borderless Schengen Area of the EU, whereas Britain is not." — James Glenday, ABC News.
Building work has begun on a wall in the northern French city of Calais, a major transport hub on the edge of the English Channel, to prevent migrants from stowing away on cars, trucks, ferries and trains bound for Britain.

Dubbed "The Great Wall of Calais," the concrete barrier — one kilometer (half a mile) long and four meters (13 feet) high on both sides of the two-lane highway approaching the harbor — will pass within a few hundred meters of a sprawling shanty town known as "The Jungle."

The squalid camp now houses more than 10,000 migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East who are trying to reach Britain. The migrants at the camp are mostly from Sudan (45%), Afghanistan (30%), Pakistan (7%), Eritrea (6%) and Syria (1%), according to a recent census conducted by aid agencies.

Construction of the wall — which will cost British taxpayers £2 million (€2.3 million; $2.6 million) and is due to be completed by the end of 2016 — comes amid a surge in the number of migrants from the camp trying to reach Britain.

Around 200 migrants from Calais, the principal ferry crossing point between France and England, are successfully smuggled into Britain each week, according to police estimates cited by the Telegraph. This amounts to more than 10,000 so-called "lorry drops" — when illegal migrants hiding in the back of trucks jump out after reaching the UK — this year.

In 2015-16, more than 84,000 migrants were caught attempting illegally to enter Britain from the Ports of Calais and Dunkirk, according to Home Office figures cited by the Guardian. On just one day, December 17, 2015, around 1,000 migrants stormed the Channel Tunnel in a bid to reach Britain. Police, who used tear gas to disperse them, said the number seeking to cross the Channel in a single day was "unprecedented." Many of the migrants who are turned away move to "The Jungle" and try over and over again.

Migrants at the camp have been using felled trees and gas canisters to create makeshift roadblocks to slow trucks heading for Britain. When the trucks come to a stop, migrants climb aboard to stow away as the vehicles head to Britain through the Channel Tunnel or on ferries.

UK-bound migrants are building up to 30 barricades a night to stop vehicles travelling through Calais, according to French officials. Teams of traffic police now spend every night trying to keep the roads around Calais clear of migrants and their debris.

In recent months, masked gangs of people smugglers armed with knives, bats and tire irons have forced truck drivers to stop so that migrants can board their vehicles. The Deputy Mayor of Calais, Philippe Mignonet, has described the main route to the port as a "no-go area" between midnight and 6am.

Hundreds of migrants roam the highway near Calais, France, trying to stop trucks headed for Britain, in an attempt to stow away on board. (Image source: RT video screenshot)

In an interview with the French newspaper Liberation, Xavier Delebarre, who is in charge of France's northern road network, said the migrants have "tools, electric chainsaws that can be bought anywhere for fifteen euros." He added:
"There is a strategy in their concerted attacks. They launch simultaneous assaults, and also diversions. Migrants build barricades by piling different materials on the road, including branches, as well as mattresses and trash. They set it on fire, and then put gas cylinders in the fire, which is very worrying. They create traffic jams to storm the trucks, so they can board them to try to get to England."
On September 5, hundreds of French truck drivers and farmers (who complain that fields around the migrant camp are full of rubbish and human excrement) blocked off the main route in and out of Calais, in an attempt to pressure the French government to close "The Jungle." The blockage brought to a standstill the route used by trucks from all over Europe to reach Calais and Britain.

Antoine Ravisse, president of the Grand Rassemblement du Calaisis, a coalition of local businesses, said the protesters wanted assurances from the French government that the roads in Calais will be made safe again. He said:
"The main image of Calais today in the newspaper and on TV is very negative, all about the migrants and attacks on the highway. The first point is we want the highways safe again. It's unacceptable that today in France you can't travel without fear and without the certainty that you won't be attacked.
"We apologize to our British friends — our economy depends very much on the business we do with England. We apologize to all the families but some of them have experienced very bad times and dangerous times and they will agree it can't go on.
"We are standing here and we will wait until we hear something back from the government. We are not moving until we hear from the government."
David Sagnard, president of FNTR national truck drivers' federation, said:
"We have to do this. We have to escalate things, because for months now the situation has been getting worse and worse. Before, it was just attempts to get on trucks. Now there is looting and willful destruction, tarpaulins are slashed, goods stolen or destroyed. Drivers go to work with fear in their bellies and the economic consequences are severe."
The problems in Calais are a source of increasing tension between France and Britain.

The Treaty of Le Touquet, signed between France and Britain in 2003, allows for so-called juxtaposed controls, meaning that immigration checks are carried out before people board trains or ferries, rather than upon their arrival after disembarkation. France, for example, maintains an immigration checkpoint at the Port of Dover in Britain to check the passports of all travelers bound for France.

Conversely, British border police check the passports of UK-bound travelers at checkpoints at Calais and Dunkirk. Travelers without proper documentation are removed from cars, trucks, ferries and trains and left behind in France. Migrants denied entry into Britain can apply for asylum in France or go elsewhere.

Some French politicians are blaming Britain for the problems in Calais. Mayor of Calais Natacha Bouchart said Britain's "black market economy" and "cushy benefits system" were responsible for drawing migrants to her town. She said:
"They want to go to England because they can expect better conditions on arrival there than anywhere else in Europe or even internationally. There are no ID cards. They can easily find work outside the formal economy, which is not really controlled.
"Calais is a hostage to the British. The migrants come here to get to Britain. The situation here is barely manageable. The UK border should be moved from Calais to the English side of the Channel because we're not here to do their jobs."
Xavier Bertrand, president of the Calais region, said: "It's all England's fault. The main reason we have so many problems is because of the English. Either they change their rules, or we hand them back their border."

Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who is a candidate for presidential in elections in 2017, has said the Le Touquet treaty should be renegotiated and that Britain should be required to process asylum claims in the UK. During a campaign speech, he said:
"I demand the opening of an asylum processing center in Britain for those who are in Calais, so that the British do the work there. The British should organize charter flights to send home people they do not want."
It was Sarkozy himself who signed the treaty with Britain in 2003 when he was the French interior minister.

By contrast, British authorities view "The Jungle" as primarily a French problem. In the words of correspondent James Glenday:
"Firstly, the camp is in France.... Secondly, the asylum seekers could apply for protection in France or the European country they first landed in. Lastly, they only reached Calais by crossing French borders. France is part of the borderless Schengen Area of the EU, whereas Britain is not."
A European law known as the Dublin Regulation requires anyone seeking asylum in the European Union to do so in the first EU country they reach. In other words, according to EU law, French authorities should send most of the migrants in Calais back to Italy or Greece, where they first entered the EU, rather than to Britain.

The Dublin Regulation, however, has been in disarray since August 2015, when German Chancellor Angela Merkel suspended the requirement for asylum seekers from Syria. The move, which allowed Syrians reaching Germany to stay while their applications are being processed, has resulted in a collapse of the EU's refugee system — and has encouraged even more migrants to make their way to Germany.

Authorities in France are worried that any changes to the Le Touquet treaty could attract thousands — possibly tens of thousands — of additional migrants to Calais. This would play into the hands of Marine Le Pen, the leader of the anti-immigration National Front party, and one of the most popular politicians in France.

A recent poll showed that if the French presidential election were held today, Le Pen would win the first round with 29%, compared to 20% for Sarkozy and 11% for the incumbent, French President François Hollande.

Not surprisingly, Hollande has ruled out making changes to the Le Touquet treaty. He has also said that the decision by British voters to leave the EU will have no bearing on the treaty, which is a bilateral agreement. He said:
"Challenging the Le Touquet agreement on the pretext that the UK passed the Brexit does not make sense. What should perhaps be seen is how the UK and France could better work together to improve the situation of these immigrants."
French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve recently pledged to dismantle "The Jungle" with the "greatest determination." Migrants at the camp are to be relocated throughout the rest of France.
 
 
Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.
Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9012/calais-migrants

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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