The Democrats Embrace Anti-Semitism - Daniel John Sobieski

​
by Daniel John Sobieski

As we mourn the tragedy in Pittsburgh, let us remember who the enablers of such horrific hate have been

Liberals, Democrats, and the legacy media are forever prattling about how the “toxic rhetoric” of President Trump before and after his election has inspired a culture of violence expressed most recently (in their view) in the flurry of packages sent to leading Democrats containing amateur-night explosive devices some of which could only explode if you used a real explosive to set them off.

Words do have consequences and can inspire the unhinged, but nowhere in Trump’s rhetoric are urgings to build and deliver explosive devices to your political opponents, not even those who urge their followers to “get in the face” of Republicans in their congressional offices or favorite eateries.

Despite their constant references to David Duke in an attempt to paint Trump as racist, Trump did not seek any political endorsement from the likes of Duke and repudiated it when it came. His record of black empowerment in terms of rising employment, home ownership, and small business formation, reflected in rising black support in the polls, belies the racism accusations.

Following the Democrat’s own reasoning, one can credibly say by embracing noted anti-Semites Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton Democrats have been enablers of the deadly anti-Semitic hate most recently seen in the horrific massacre at a synagogue in Pittsburgh:

President Donald Trump took a pounding at the service for Aretha Franklin. The Rev. Al Sharpton took Trump to task for supposedly demonstrating a lack of respect by saying, “She worked for me on numerous occasions.” Other speakers took shots at the president either by name or by implication for his supposed racism and bigotry.
Onstage, in the front row, sat Sharpton, Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan, the Rev. Jesse Jackson and former President Bill Clinton, all of whom know a thing or two about racism and bigotry. Their careers depend on exaggerating the extent and the impact of anti-black white racism.
At a rally in Harlem in 1991, Sharpton said, “If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house.” A few days later, a young black boy was accidentally killed when struck by a car driven by a Hasidic Jew. For three nights, Jews in Crown Heights were subjected to what one Columbia University professor called “a modern-day pogrom” in which two people died and almost 200 were injured. On day two of the riots, Sharpton led a march of about 400 protesters in Crown Heights, shouting, “No justice, no peace.” Days later, Sharpton referred derisively to Jews living in Crown Heights as “diamond merchants.” A few years later, Sharpton called whites moving businesses into Harlem “interlopers.”
Sitting next to Sharpton at Franklin’s funeral was Farrakhan, whose hand Clinton shook. As recently as February 2018, Farrakhan said: “Jews were responsible for all of this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out, turning men into women and women into men. White folks are going down. And Satan is going down. And Farrakhan, by God’s grace, has pulled the cover off of that Satanic Jew, and I’m here to say your time is up. Your world is through.”

If you have a picture of President Trump sitting just a few chairs down from David Duke, posing for a picture, or shaking his hand, present it to the Trump-deranged liberals and media. We do have a picture of President Barack Hussein Obama with the bigot Farrakhan, both with beaming smiles.

Harvard Law Professor and longtime Democrat Alan Dershowitz said he would not have campaigned for then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) if he knew about the future president's photo op with Louis Farrakhan.
Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, is a "virulent anti-Semite and anti-American," Dershowitz said on "Fox & Friends." …
"He has called Judaism a gutter religion. He is a horrible, horrible human being," he said.
A photographer, Askia Muhammad, showed Fox News' Tucker Carlson a 2005 picture of Obama and Farrakhan smiling together.
He said that afterward, the Congressional Black Caucus contacted him and demanded to have the photo back.
“I gave the original disk to him and in a sense swore myself to secrecy because I had quietly made a copy for myself,” Muhammad said.
Muhammad said he thought the CBC was concerned a photo with Farrakhan could hurt the young senator's future presidential aspirations.

As it should have. From Ferguson to Baltimore and beyond, President Obama’s words aiding and abetting the war on cops and inciting racial division have been the equivalent of yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre. He has encouraged a false narrative of racist cops and racist police departments whose officers are guilty until proven innocent, or buried, whichever comes first. Never mind in both Baltimore and Ferguson the cops accused of racism and murder were found guilty of neither.

It was Ferguson, Missouri, where President Obama’s Justice Department sent 40 FBI agents to prove Officer Darren Wilson was a racist murderer of an innocent black teen. He made the anti-Semitic, race-baiting Al Sharpton, who helped create the myth of “hands up, don’t shoot”, a key adviser on race matters and Ferguson.

Keith Ellison, the controversial Democratic candidate for Minnesota attorney general, has had warm past relations with the nation of Islam and high praise for Louis Farrakhan:

The Minnesota congressman has written about his support for a separate nation for black people. He has actively worked with and for the Nation of Islam, which openly and actively promotes a “blacks only” nation…

Then in 1997, Ellison was a spokesman for the Nation of Islam using the last name “Muhammad.”

He spoke at a public hearing in connection with a controversy involving Joanne Jackson of the Minnesota Initiative Against Racism (MIAR). Jackson was alleged to have said, “Jews are among the most racist white people I know.” Jackson denied making the statement or insisted that it had been taken out of context. Ellison appeared before the MIAR on behalf of the Nation of Islam in defense of Jackson’s alleged statement. According to the Star Tribune and the full text of the statement published in the Minneapolis Spokesman-Recorder, Ellison said:

We stand by the truth contained in the remarks attributed to [Ms. Jackson], and by her right to express her views without sanction. Here is why we support Ms. Jackson: She is correct about Minister Farrakhan. He is not a racist. He is also not an anti-Semite. Minister Farrakhan is a tireless public servant of Black people, who constantly teaches self-reliance and self-examination to the Black community....

Louis Farrakhan is not a tireless public servant. He is an anti-Semitic bigot who has been warmly embraced by the leaders of the Democratic party who now condemn Donald Trump. As we mourn the tragedy in Pittsburgh, let us remember who the enablers of such horrific hate have been.


Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/10/the_democrats_embrace_antisemitism.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

European Human Rights Court Backs Sharia Blasphemy Law - Soeren Kern

​
by Soeren Kern

The ruling effectively establishes a dangerous legal precedent, one that authorizes European states to curtail the right to free speech if such speech is deemed to be offensive to Muslims

• The European Court of Human Rights — which has jurisdiction over 47 European countries, and whose rulings are legally binding on all 28 member states of the European Union — has effectively legitimized an Islamic blasphemy code in the interests of "preserving religious peace" in Europe.
• The ruling effectively establishes a dangerous legal precedent, one that authorizes European states to curtail the right to free speech if such speech is deemed to be offensive to Muslims and thus pose a threat to religious peace.
• "In other words, my right to speak freely is less important than protecting the religious feelings of others." – Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that criticism of Mohammed, the founder of Islam, constitutes incitement to hatred and therefore is not protected free speech. Pictured: A courtroom of the ECHR in Strasbourg, France. (Image source: Adrian Grycuk/Wikimedia Commons)

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that criticism of Mohammed, the founder of Islam, constitutes incitement to hatred and therefore is not protected free speech.

With its unprecedented decision, the Strasbourg-based court — which has jurisdiction over 47 European countries, and whose rulings are legally binding on all 28 member states of the European Union — has effectively legitimized an Islamic blasphemy code in the interests of "preserving religious peace" in Europe.

The case involves Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, an Austrian woman who in 2011 was convicted of "denigrating religious beliefs" after giving a series of lectures about the dangers of fundamentalist Islam.

Sabaditsch-Wolff's legal problems began in November 2009, when she presented a three-part seminar about Islam to the Freedom Education Institute, a political academy linked to the Austrian Freedom Party — which today forms part of the Austrian government. A left-leaning weekly magazine, News, planted a journalist in the audience to secretly record the lectures. Lawyers for the publication then handed the transcripts over to the Viennese public prosecutor's office as evidence of hate speech against Islam, according to Section 283 of the Austrian Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB).

The offending speech was an offhand comment by Sabaditsch-Wolff that Mohammed was a pedophile because he married his wife Aisha when she was just six or seven years old. Sabaditsch-Wolff's actual words were, "A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? What do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?"

Indeed, most hadiths (collections of traditions containing the words and actions of Mohammed) confirm that Aisha was prepubescent when Mohammed married her and was only nine years old when the marriage was consummated. Mohammed's actions would today be unlawful in Austria, so Sabaditsch-Wolff's comments were factually, if not politically, correct.

Formal charges against Sabaditsch-Wolff were filed in September 2010 and her bench trial, presided over by one judge and no jury, began that November. On February 15, 2011, Sabaditsch-Wolff was convicted of "denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion," according to Section 188 of the Austrian Criminal Code.

The judge rationalized that Mohammed's sexual contact with nine-year-old Aisha could not be considered pedophilia because Mohammed continued his marriage to Aisha until his death. According to this line of thinking, Mohammed had no exclusive desire for underage girls; he was also attracted to older females because Aisha was 18 years old when Mohammed died.

The judge ordered Sabaditsch-Wolff to pay a fine of €480 ($550) or an alternative sentence of 60 days in prison. Moreover, she was required to pay the costs of the trial.

Sabaditsch-Wolff appealed the conviction to the Provincial Appellate Court in Vienna (Oberlandesgericht Wien), but that appeal was rejected on December 20, 2011. A request for a new trial was dismissed by the Austrian Supreme Court on December 11, 2013.

Sabaditsch-Wolff then took her case to the European Court of Human Rights, a supranational court established by the European Convention on Human Rights. The court hears applications alleging violations of the civil and political rights set out in the Convention.

Relying on Article 10 (Freedom of Expression) of the Convention, Sabaditsch-Wolff complained that Austrian courts failed to address the substance of her statements in the light of her right to freedom of expression. If they had done so, she argued, they would not have qualified them as mere value judgments but as value judgments based on facts. Furthermore, her criticism of Islam occurred in the framework of an objective and lively discussion which contributed to a public debate and had not been aimed at defaming Mohammed. Sabaditsch-Wolff also argued that religious groups had to tolerate even severe criticism.

The ECHR ruled that states could restrict the free speech rights enshrined in Article 10 of the Convention if such speech was "likely to incite religious intolerance" and was "likely to disturb the religious peace in their country." The court added:

"The Court noted that the domestic courts comprehensively explained why they considered that the applicant's statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation; specifically, they had not been made in an objective manner contributing to a debate of public interest (e.g. on child marriage), but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship. It agreed with the domestic courts that Mrs S. must have been aware that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt to arouse indignation in others. The national courts found that Mrs S. had subjectively labelled Muhammad with pedophilia as his general sexual preference, and that she failed to neutrally inform her audience of the historical background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue. Hence, the Court saw no reason to depart from the domestic courts' qualification of the impugned statements as value judgments which they had based on a detailed analysis of the statements made.
"The Court found in conclusion that in the instant case the domestic courts carefully balanced the applicant's right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society.
"The Court held further that even in a lively discussion it was not compatible with Article 10 of the Convention to pack incriminating statements into the wrapping of an otherwise acceptable expression of opinion and claim that this rendered passable those statements exceeding the permissible limits of freedom of expression.
"Lastly, since Mrs S. was ordered to pay a moderate fine and that fine was on the lower end of the statutory range of punishment, the criminal sanction could not to be considered as disproportionate.
"Under these circumstances, and given the fact that Mrs S. made several incriminating statements, the Court considered that the Austrian courts did not overstep their wide margin of appreciation in the instant case when convicting Mrs S. of disparaging religious doctrines. Overall, there had been no violation of Article 10."

The ruling effectively establishes a dangerous legal precedent, one that authorizes European states to curtail the right to free speech if such speech is deemed to be offensive to Muslims and thus pose a threat to religious peace.

The ECHR ruling will be welcomed by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, a bloc of 57 Muslim countries that has long pushed for the European Union to impose limits on free speech when it comes to criticism of Islam.

The OIC has pressed Western democracies to implement United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution 16/18, which calls on all countries to combat "intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of ... religion and belief."

Resolution 16/18, which was adopted at HRC headquarters in Geneva on March 24, 2011, is widely viewed as a significant step forward in OIC efforts to advance the international legal concept of defaming Islam.

Former OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu hailed the ECHR's decision, which he said "shows that disrespect, insults and detestable enmities have nothing to do with the freedom of expression or human rights." He added:

"The fight against Islamophobia and our opinions we have been voicing for years have been adopted and declared by the ECHR. This ruling is pleasing in all its aspects."

In a statement, Sabaditsch-Wolff criticized the ruling but held out hope that European publics are waking up to the looming threats to free speech:

"On Thursday, 25 October the ECHR ruled that my conviction by an Austrian court for discussing the marriage between Prophet Mohammed and a six-year-old girl, Aisha, did not infringe my rights of freedom of speech.
"I was not extended the courtesy of being told of this ruling. Like many others, I had to read it in the media.
"The ECHR found there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights and that right to expression needed to be balanced with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria.
"In other words, my right to speak freely is less important than protecting the religious feelings of others.
"This should ring warning bells for my fellow citizens across the continent. We should all be extremely concerned that the rights of Muslims in Europe NOT to be offended are greater than my own rights, as a native European Christian woman, to speak freely.
"I am proud to be the woman who has raised this alarm.
"I am also optimistic. Since giving my seminars in Austria in 2009, we have come a very long way.
"Ten years ago, the press labeled me a 'confused doom-monger' and I was compared to Osama Bin Laden. Now, Islam is being discussed in every sphere of life and people are waking up to the reality of a culture so opposed to our own.
"The cultural and political threat posed by Islam to Western societies is now widely recognized and discussed. It is fair to say European society, as well as the political realm, is undergoing an enlightenment, as it is more awake than ever to the need to defend our own Judeo-Christian culture.
"I believe my seminars in 2009, and subsequent work have contributed to strong push back against an Islamic culture which is so at odds with our own. And note with interest that only one sentence out of 12 hours of seminars on Islam was a prosecutable offense. I assume the remaining content is now officially sanctioned by our Establishment masters.
"It is obvious to me that public education and discourse on the subject of Islam can have a fundamental and far-reaching impact, even if our state or supra-national authorities try to stifle or silence it, in order to appease a culture so foreign to our own.
"This fight continues. My voice will not and cannot be silenced."

 Follow Soeren Kern on Twitter and Facebook


Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13204/european-court-human-rights-sharia

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Is Democracy Doomed? - Chris Talgo and Emma Kaden

​
by Chris Talgo and Emma Kaden

The United States is following the path of many powerful civilizations that eventually fell into decay.

More than 242 years after the United States was founded, only 37 percent of Americans are satisfied with the current state of the country, according to a recent Gallup poll. Of the 61 percent that are unsatisfied, many believe the social, economic, and cultural issues plaguing the country will lead to its downfall. This belief begs the question: How long can a democracy last?

According to Scottish historian Alexander Fraser Tytler, only about 200 years:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”

If this cycle of democracy only lasts 200 years, is the United States running on borrowed time?

From Bondage to Spiritual Faith

During the initial stage of the so-called “Tytler Cycle,” a people who are suffering from injustices develop a philosophy to break their bonds. In the early years of America, this occurred when King George III implemented restrictions upon the colonists, and the colonists began to recognize the injustices dealt upon them.

From Spiritual Faith to Great Courage

The second stage of the Tytler Cycle involves taking action to right the injustices identified in the first stage. In the 1770s, this occurred in multiple instances, most notably the Boston Tea Party, which led to the American War for Independence. During this time, colonists fought for the principles they developed under the height of King George III’s tyranny.

From Courage to Liberty

In the third stage of the Tytler Cycle, the battles fought to escape injustice have been successful, and liberty takes hold and evolves. After the Revolutionary War, the still-young American nation embraced its newfound liberty: The states ratified the U.S. Constitution and passed the Bill of Rights, the American government took shape, democracy spread across North America, and the 13th Amendment abolished slavery after the Civil War.

From Liberty to Abundance

The fourth stage of the Tytler Cycle occurs when liberty leads to prosperity. Through sacrifice, hard work, and other virtues, a civilization reaches its apex. The United States entered this stage in the late nineteenth century and lasted more than 100 years. During this pivotal period of American history, the United States became an industrial powerhouse, the world’s financial center, and the leading innovator of new technology, such as electricity, communications, transportation, information, and household goods. In the blink of an eye, America went from a fledgling country to the world’s economic superpower.

From Abundance to Selfishness

During the fifth stage of the Tytler Cycle, members of a civilization become more concerned with their own needs and desires than contributing to their civilization. In this stage, a democracy begins its precipitous decline. In the United States, this stage began in the 1960s, when young Americans launched the counterculture movement and engaged in rampant drug use, “free love,” and numerous illicit activities -- purely for their personal enjoyment. Few during this period wished to fight for the ideals their country was built upon. Not only that, but the family unit experienced a major breakdown.

From Selfishness to Apathy

Whereas the previous stage was the turning point in which selfishness took root, the apathy stage is where it spreads like a virus. In the United States, this occurred when the Baby Boomers came of age and began to fill leadership roles in the country, not only spreading their self-indulgence across the nation but also infecting the culture with a “me” mentality and the “greed is good” philosophy. As Bill Clinton entered the Oval Office and Americans lived well beyond their means, the values of the Founding Fathers -- liberty, selflessness, and discipline -- fell by the wayside.

From Apathy to Dependence

This stage of the Tytler Cycle occurs when the selfish tendencies of a society cause it to become reliant on government. In the United States, this stage truly took shape in the early twenty-first century, when a greater number of Americans began to rely on the government for food, shelter, and other necessities they felt entitled to, rather than working hard to earn them. In 2012, Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney said, “There are 47 percent… who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.” As a result of this, Romney was ostracized (probably by the 47 percent) and lost the election.

From Dependence to Bondage

The final stage of the Tytler Cycle represents a reversion to bondage and powerlessness. Members of a civilization are fully dependent on the centralized government, and have little to no power, freedom, or liberty. In the United States, this is sadly represented by the explosion of the size and scope of the federal government in the past decade. During this ominous period, the national debt has reached more than $21 trillion. The federal government’s workforce is at an all-time high, not to mention the skyrocketing number of state and local public officials. Overregulation and complicated laws are forcing Americans into a state of perpetual compliance to the ever-growing creeds of government. The days of liberty have long passed us by: Now, the government can determine what foods we eat, what type of car we drive, and even what kind of lightbulb we use in our homes.

Bearing all of this in mind, there is still reason for hope. Although the United States is following the path of many powerful civilizations that eventually fell into decay, there is something fundamentally different about the United States: it is a constitutional federal republic. Power is shared between the states and the national government, and the Constitution guarantees that states remain sovereign, not beholden to the national government.

Although many argue that the national government has usurped states’ rights, the states have many mechanisms to restore their diminished power. For instance, the Supreme Court has recently made decisions in favor of a limited national government and increased state power. Following the Kavanaugh confirmation, this trend will likely continue into the foreseeable future. Additionally, Article V grants states the power to propose a constitutional amendment, such as the Balanced Budget Amendment, which is gaining momentum, or congressional term limits.

There are an infinite number of possibilities for what the United States will become, but hopefully the exceptional model of American democracy will survive well beyond the historic 200-year lifespan.

Chris Talgo and Emma Kaden are free-market editors and writers for The Henry Dearborn Institute for Liberty.

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/10/is_democracy_doomed.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Is Canada's Government Funding Terrorism? - Tom Quiggin

​
by Tom Quiggin

Canadian taxpayers have unwittingly been funding terrorism for more than two decades

• "Members of Parliament of the Government of Canada are using their official positions to channel taxpayers' money to Islamic Relief Canada (IRC). The IRC is a federally registered charity, so the taxpayer is subsidizing this activity. IRC in turn is sending millions of dollars to Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW). Seven independent and reliable sources have gone on the public record and stated that IRW uses charitable funds to provide material support to terrorism. In most cases, this means Hamas, an organization which is listed as a terrorist entity by the Government of Canada." — From of a letter sent to Brenda Lucki, Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).
• Funding terrorism is a criminal act according the Criminal Code of Canada.
• It is imperative that the RCMP look into this matter of national and international security, and that the Trudeau government be held accountable.

Canadian taxpayers have unwittingly been funding terrorism for more than two decades, often through federally registered charities, many of which have since been banned in other countries and subsequently by Ottawa as well. The International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy, which has sent tens of millions of dollars in goods and services to the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas, is one example. Another is the Islamic Society of North America's Development Foundation, which was discovered to be funding the Pakistani Islamist movement Jamaat-e-Islami. A third was Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi's "Jihad Fund," which was operating in Canada through a charity registered as the World Islamic Call Society.

For the past three years, however, since the election of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, there has been a shift in the way in which Canadian money is being funneled to terrorist groups. Whereas prior to 2015, the individuals responsible for terrorism-funding were not members of the government or parliament, current evidence suggests that acting politicians are involved in directing money down a path where the ultimate destination is a listed terrorist group. The money is being funneled through a variety of government organizations and programs, including the International Humanitarian Aid Program (2017), M103 Islamophobia Funding (2018), Canada Summer Jobs Program (2017 and 2018), Myanmar Crisis Relief Fund/Islamic Relief (May 2018), Canadian Humanitarian Assistance Fund (CHAF), Canada's Humanitarian and Development Assistance to Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon, and Prime Minister Trudeau's volunteer work and promotional video for Islamic Relief Canada.

Since, if true, this would be a violation of Section 83.18 and Section 83.03 of the Criminal Code of Canada -- and an investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) is required to determine the legality of the government of Canada funding a known Islamist front group -- I sent a letter to Brenda Lucki, Commissioner of the RCMP, demanding a criminal investigation into Trudeau, Minister of Global Affairs Chrystia Freeland, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Ahmed Hussen, Minister for International Development Marie Claude Bibeau, Parliamentary Secretary for Global Affairs Omar Alghabra, and MP for Mississauga-Erin Mills Iqra Khalid.

The October 9 letter -- co-signed by Tahir Gora of the Canadian Thinkers Forum and TAG-TV, Raheel Raza and Sohail Raza of Muslims Facing Tomorrow and Benjamin Dichter -- reads as follows:

Dear Commissioner Lucki,
This is a formal statement of complaint and I am willing to testify in court to the material contained in this report. The first twenty pages of this document contains the complaint itself and the direct relevant information. The remainder of the document contains supporting, explanatory or supplementary information.
The complaint is that Members of Parliament of the Government of Canada are using their official positions to channel taxpayers' money to Islamic Relief Canada (IRC). The IRC is a federally registered charity, so the taxpayer is subsidizing this activity. IRC in turn is sending millions of dollars to Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW). Seven independent and reliable sources have gone on the public record and stated that IRW uses charitable funds to provide material support to terrorism. In most cases, this means Hamas, an organization which is listed as a terrorist entity by the Government of Canada.
Funding terrorism is a criminal act according the Criminal Code of Canada.
I am a court expert in terrorism in both the Federal and criminal courts. I have spent years working in the military and intelligence communities, including several years spent at the RCMP (A-INSET). I was working for the RCMP in a national security intelligence role during the Momin Khawaja investigation when I was first qualified as a court expert. At other times, I have worked for the Canadian Armed Forces, the Privy Council Office (Intelligence Assessment Secretariat) and I have been a Senior Fellow at the Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. Military service overseas involved time spent in Croatia and Bosnia during the Yugoslav War.
As you will note, all the sources of information here are public...

Included in the source material we presented to Commissioner Lucki is the following list of those countries raising concerns about terrorism-funding:

• In 2014 the United Arab Emirates produced a list of organizations they deemed to be terrorist entities. Among those was Islamic Relief Worldwide and Islamic Relief UK.
• In 2017, Bangladesh banned three organizations, including Islamic Relief. The decision to ban them is seen as a "preventative measure against potential radicalization in the camps."
• In 2014, Israel banned Islamic Relief from operating in the West Bank, accusing Islamic Relief Worldwide of being a source of funding for the Palestinian Hamas Islamist movement.
• In 2015, the HSBC Bank of the United Kingdom ended its banking links with Islamic Relief, citing fears the aid could wind up with terrorist groups. This became public in 2016 when the Times of London published an article titled "Terror fear makes HSBC cut ties to Muslim charity."
• In 2012, the UBS Bank cut its ties with Islamic Relief due to concerns about counter-terrorist regulations.
• In 2014, the UK Charities Aid Foundation (CAF) removed Islamic Relief from its donation page, although it states is has some 400 other Islamic charities that it supports in some 50 Islamic countries.
• The Financial Post of Canada had listed Islamic Relief Canada on their "charities of the year" list but removed it in 2014, stating that IRC was pulled "since its international arm has been banned elsewhere (though not in Canada) for allegedly funneling funds to the terrorist organization Hamas."

It is imperative that the RCMP look into this matter of national and international security, and that the Trudeau government be held accountable.

Tom Quiggin is a former military intelligence officer, a former intelligence contractor for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and a court appointed expert on jihadist terrorism in both the Federal and criminal courts of Canada. He is the author of SUBMISSION: The Danger of Political Islam to Canada – With a Warning to America, written with co-authors Tahir Gora, Saied Shoaaib, Jonathon Cotler, and Rick Gill with a foreword by Raheel Raza. He is also the primary contributor to the QUIGGIN REPORT podcast.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13137/canada-funding-terrorism

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Days after truce reached, Islamic Jihad threatens to pound Israel - News Agencies, Nikki Guttman and Israel Hayom Staff

​
by News Agencies, Nikki Guttman and Israel Hayom Staff

Palestinian terrorist group vows to retaliate for deaths of three Palestinian teens killed in Israeli airstrike while approaching Gaza border fence

An explosion is seen during Israeli airstrikes on terrorist targets 
in the Gaza Strip, Saturday
Photo: Reuters 

Two days after agreeing to a cease-fire with Israel, the Gaza-based terrorist organization Islamic Jihad on Monday threatened to renew its attacks on Israeli communities in retaliation for the deaths of three Palestinian teenagers.

Gaza health ministry officials reported that three Palestinian boys were killed in an Israeli airstrike on Sunday. The IDF said its aircraft targeted "three terrorists approaching the security fence, who were trying to sabotage it and were apparently planting a bomb."

Islamic Jihad is an Iranian-backed terrorist group that sometimes operates independently of Gaza's Hamas rulers.

"We vow to retaliate for the killing of children on the Gaza Strip border in a way that will befit the scope of the crime," an Islamic Jihad spokesman said.

On Sunday, Gaza authorities reported that two of the boys were 13 years old and the third was 14. The Health Ministry said ambulance crews had brought the bodies from the border fence to a hospital.

The latest strike came after a surge in violence in the conflict on the Gaza border. Over the weekend, Hamas sent its largest volley of rockets in months over the Israeli border. The Iron Dome defense system intercepted all the rockets that posed a threat to populated areas, and the rest detonated in open areas.

In retaliation, the Israeli Air Force struck at least 80 targets in the Gaza Strip, including terrorist training sites and weapons storage facilities.

Meanwhile, residents of Israeli communities near the border – whose lives have been disrupted and whose fields have burned in the eight months since Hamas began staging its weekly "marches of return" along the border and launching firebomb balloons and kites into Israel –  launched a nationwide protest on Monday against the government's lack of decisive action against terrorism from Gaza.

The residents marched to the Kerem Shalom border crossing – the only entry point of commercial goods from Israel into the Gaza Strip – and cut off access to it in protest against the transfer of goods into Gaza while Hamas continues to terrorize Israel's southern communities.

Monday's march was just one of many planned demonstrations, including a protest at a major junction in Tel Aviv the previous day.

"When there is a Color Red [rocket alert] near Gaza, the entire country will hear it," organizers vowed.

The protests began on Saturday night, when several dozen residents of border communities staged a protest at the Yad Mordechai intersection.

Yifat Ben Shoshan of Moshav Netiv Haasara, one of the organizers, said, "We refuse to remain quiet about the situation. Our voice isn't being heard and disaster is closer than ever."

During the demonstration on Saturday, activists disclosed that they were planning to shut down high schools in their communities, and some parents kept younger children home from school on Sunday.

Merav Cohen of Kibbutz Ein Hashloshah, who initiated the school protest, said, "We need to take action on our own behalf because no one will do it for us. We don't want tragedy to strike before something is done to prevent it."

Naama Shaked-Levy of Kibbutz Gvulot spent Sunday preparing placards with her three children, whom she did not send to school as part of the protest.

"My kids know why they're staying home and we sat down to make picket signs," she said. "It's an important lesson in democracy. It doesn't make sense for kids to be frightened of balloons and kites, and that everything here is burning."

Speaking of the mass shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue on Saturday in which 11 people were murdered, Shaked-Levy said that "when the disaster in Pittsburgh happened, Diaspora Affairs Minister Naftali Bennett flew there right away. But here, people are ignoring the catastrophe."

Miri Assulin, one of the organizers of Sunday's Tel Aviv demonstration, said, "We don't intend to resume our routine and accept the 'battered wife' reality, where we're promised that everything will be OK and then it happens again."

News Agencies, Nikki Guttman and Israel Hayom Staff

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/2018/10/29/days-after-truce-reached-islamic-jihad-threatens-to-pound-israel/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Angela Merkel to resign as party chief - David Rosenberg

​
by David Rosenberg

German Chancellor Angela Merkel to resign from leadership of Christian Democratic Union after 18 years at its helm.

Reuters

German Chancellor Angela Merkel is planning on resigning as head of the Christian Democratic Union, sources close to the chancellor said Monday morning.

A number of German media outlets reported Monday that Merkel is set to step down as chair of the CDU, but is hoping to remain chancellor, after being reelected in September, 2017.

The decision comes following a regional election in the state of Hesse on Sunday, which saw the center-right CDU and its coalition partner, the center-left Social Democratic Party, both lose ground again to rivals on the left and right.

While the CDU remained the largest faction in the Hesse regional election with 27% of the vote, the vote marked the party’s poorest performance there since 1962, dropping 11.3% from the party’s 38.3% in the 2013 election.

The Social Democrats fell by a comparable amount – 11.1% - declining to just 19.8% of the vote, nearly tied with the Green Party, which rose from 11.1% in 2013.

The right-wing AfD party, which made massive gains in last year’s general election, also increased its share of the vote, rising from 4% in 2013 to 13.1%.

Earlier this month, the Christian Social Union – an ally of the CDU – suffered similar losses in a regional election in Bavaria, dropping from 101 seats in the local legislature to 85, while the Greens and AfD won again made significant gains.

The CDU’s and CSU’s losses in the local elections come on the heels of the party’s decline in last year’s general election, fueled in part by a popular backlash against Merkel’s immigration policies, which have led to a rapid increase in the number of asylum seekers residing in Germany.

The party’s declining electoral fortunes have put pressure on Merkel within the CDU, and likely prompted her decision Monday’ to resign as party chair. According to German media outlets, Merkel informed party leaders that she would not run for reelection as the CDU’s chief in a vote scheduled for December.

Despite her plans to resign, Deutsche Presse-Agentur reported that Merkel intends to stay on as Chancellor.

Merkel [h]as led the CDU for 18 years, and has served as Chancellor since 2005.


David Rosenberg

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/253933

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theories Proliferate in Labour - Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld

​
by Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld

Nowadays conspiracy theories targeting Jews, Israel, and others are being heard once again in Labour circles.

Jeremy Corbyn speaking at a leadership election rally to his supporters in August 2016, 
photo via Wikipedia

BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 990, October 29, 2018

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Conspiracy theories can usually be found in anti-Semitic environments. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is a terrorist sympathizer, supporter of Holocaust distorters, anti-Israel inciter, and part-time anti-Semite. He has also promoted conspiracy theories about Israel. Years ago, senior Labourites were heard to promote anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Nowadays conspiracy theories targeting Jews, Israel, and others are being heard once again in Labour circles. 

Conspiracy theories can usually be found in environments where anti-Semitism is substantially present. The classic, most extreme case – a lie originating in Tsarist Russia – is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Many extreme anti-Semitic conspiracy theories flourish in the Arab world.

In publications about the anti-Semitism scandal in the British Labour party, a slew of conspiracy theories by elected party members have come to the fore.

Jeremy Corbyn, who has been Labour leader since 2015, is a terrorist sympathizer, supporter of Holocaust distorters, anti-Israel inciter, and part-time anti-Semite. He has also promoted conspiracy theories about Israel. In 2010, Corbyn spoke at a meeting of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign in London at which he mentioned the shooting of Turkish activists by Israeli commandos on a ship of the Gaza flotilla. He remarked that British MPs had made speeches in Parliament on this issue with a pre-prepared script that he was sure had been written by then Israeli Ambassador Ron Prosor. “They all came with same key words,” Corbyn said. “It was rather like reading a European document looking for buzz-words. And the buzz-words were: Israel’s ‘need for security, the extremism of the people on one ship and the existence of Turkish militants on the vessel.’” The Daily Mail checked the transcript of the Commons debate in question and was unable to find any evidence that these buzzwords were used by any MPs.

Two years later, Corbyn gave an interview to the Iranian propaganda outlet PressTV in which he commented on a terrorist attack at an Egyptian army base in the Sinai Peninsula that killed 16 Egyptian soldiers. He suggested that Israel had been behind the attack because it had an interest in increased violence in Sinai and a destabilization of the Muslim Brotherhood regime. He said, “In whose interests is it to kill Egyptians other than Israel, concerned about the growing closeness of relationships between Palestine and the new Egyptian government? … I suspect the hand of Israel in this whole process of destabilization.”

There are several classic conspiracy theories about Jews currently circulating within Labour. One was articulated by former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone, who resigned from the party earlier this year after having been suspended for some time. Livingstone claims that charges of anti-Semitism leveled against individual Labourites and the party in general are used to smear the left and silence criticism of Israel, an assertion that British sociologist David Hirsh defines as the “Livingstone formulation.”

In 2003, veteran Labour MP Tom Dallyel said that then-Prime Minister Tony Blair was unduly influenced in his policy on the Middle East in favor of Israel by a cabal of Jewish advisers. He specifically mentioned Peter Mandelson, Lord Levy, and Jack Straw. The last of these, who was Foreign Secretary at the time, is an evangelical Christian with one Jewish grandfather.

The same year, Labour peer Lord Ahmed claimed that Jewish lawyers and media were responsible for the length of the prison sentence he received after causing a fatal car crash. He resigned after the party suspended him.

In recent years, some Labour officials have claimed that Israel was behind ISIS. One was Blackburn councilor and former mayor Salim Mulla. He too was suspended by the party.

Muhammad Pappu, a local councilor in the London borough of Tower Hamlets, was praised by Corbyn for his help in creating a “fair, just and decent society.” This is the same Pappu who shared messages on Facebook in which he accused Britain of attacking Syria “to install a Rothschild bank.” He has also shared posts on social media claiming that Israel staged 9/11 and was responsible for the London terrorist bombings and the Paris terrorist attacks.

While Corbyn has never apologized for his conspiracy claims, some lesser Labour officials have expressed regret for having promoted conspiracy theories alleging Jewish world control and responsibility for terrorism. In December 2015, Labour councilor Irfan Muhammad, of the London borough of Lambeth, posted on his Facebook page: “Jews working in the World Trade Center received a text message before the incident, ‘Do not come to work on September 11th.’” When this was exposed he resigned his post as councilor and apologized. Andy Slack, a Labour city councilor in Chesterfield, shared: “The modern State of Israel was created by the Rothschilds, not God, and what they are doing to the Palestinian people now is exactly what they intend for the whole world.” He too later apologized.

On the other hand, John Clarke, a city councilor and prospective Labour parliamentary candidate, shared this tweet in 2017 by a neo-Nazi: “The Rothschilds have used usury alongside modern Israel as an imperial instrument to take over the world and all of its resources, including you and I.” Rather than apologize for the retweet, Clarke commented that it contained a great deal of truth.

The trade union leader Mark Serwotka, head of the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), is an avid supporter of Jeremy Corbyn. Referring to the anti-Semitism row within Labour, he told a conference that it was possible “that Israel could have created a story that doesn’t ‘exist’ in order to distract attention from atrocities.” Serwotka had been expelled from Labour in the 1990s as an extreme leftist but was allowed to rejoin after Corbyn became its leader.

Ian Hilpus, a former BBC producer and Corbyn supporter, wrote about the Labour leader that the Zionists are “part of a conspiracy to undermine the most honest man in politics today.” He posted this on a Facebook group called We Support Jeremy Corbyn that has 70,000 members.

While conspiracy theories proliferate about Jews and Israel, they are not the only targets for attack. Andrew Murray, policy advisor to Corbyn, suggested in an article that the British security services were undermining Corbyn. Mendy Richards, selected as the prospective Labour parliamentary candidate for the constituency seat of Worcester, was banned from bringing claims to the court without the judge’s permission after she made nonsensical accusations against the security services, the Metropolitan Police, the army, the postal service, her water company, her gas, electricity, and broadband providers, and more.

View PDF

An earlier version of this article, co-written with Irene Kuruc, was published on October 17, 2018 by Algemeiner.

BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family

Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld is a Senior Research Associate at the BESA Center and a former chairman of the Steering Committee of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. He specializes in Israeli–Western European relations, anti-Semitism, and anti-Zionism, and is the author of The War of a Million Cuts.

Source: https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/uk-labour-party-antisemitism/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Omani Foreign Minister Fends Off Al-Jazeera Criticism of Netanyahu-Qaboos Meeting - MEMRI

​
by MEMRI

The State of Israel is one of the countries of the Middle East, and the Israeli prime minister expressed his desire to visit our sultanate, and to present the Sultan with his views on how to resolve the issues of the Middle East

n an Al-Jazeera TV interview following Israeli PM Netanyahu's meeting with Omani Sultan Qaboos bin Said Al Said, Omani Foreign Minister Yusuf bin Alawi bin Abdullah was asked why the sultanate had hosted the Israeli leader. "Why? Are we not allowed to do so?" he responded. When the interviewer later asked him about the timing of the visit, he responded: "Anybody has the right to express an opinion at any time he sees fit. We don't see anything strange about this." The interview with the Omani foreign minister was broadcast on October 26, 2018.

Interviewer: Why did Oman receive the Israeli prime minister?

Yusuf bin Alawi bin Abdullah: Why? Are we not allowed to do so? Nobody is forbidden to…

Interviewer: What is the reason?

Yusuf bin Alawi bin Abdullah: The reason is that the State of Israel is one of the countries of the Middle East, and the Israeli prime minister expressed his desire to visit our sultanate, and to present the Sultan with his views on how to resolve the issues of the Middle East, and particularly the Israel-Palestinian conflict. This [offer] was accepted. So he came, said what he wanted to say, and listened to what he had to say to him. Allah be praised. 

Interviewer: Okay, but we see that all the tracks of the peace process are at a deadlock. What can Oman do to get things moving? 

Yusuf bin Alawi bin Abdullah: You see it as a deadlock, but we don't. We believe there is a measure of desire on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides to get things moving again, in order to achieve stability for both peoples. 

Interviewer: But why now? Why at this time? 

Yusuf bin Alawi bin Abdullah: Any time is a suitable time. When you want to express an opinion on something… Anybody has the right to express an opinion at any time he sees fit. We don't see anything strange about this. This visit was in a strictly bilateral framework. With regard to the Palestinian cause, we, like [other] Arab countries, believe that the Palestinians must get their independent state, and live in coexistence with the Israeli people. They should embark upon a new journey for the sake of the future, and for the sake of establishing the Palestinian state. We believe that all countries, institutions and international organizations should promote support for that state. 

MEMRI

Source: https://www.memri.org/tv/omani-fm-yusuf-bin-alawi-bin-abdullah-fends-off-jazeera-criticism-meeting-israeli-pm-netanyahu

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter