Don't let the facts confuse you (about Netanyahu's speech) - Dror Eydar

by Dror Eydar

The last month in the Israeli media served to solidify the idea that Barnea and his gang are trying to impose a form of media fascism on us -- a minority of journalists who view themselves as above all others, who were never chosen by any public, but know better than us what is good for us, how we should think and what is true. They are not motivated by any desire to make the world better, but rather by a deep contempt for the masses

1.

Once upon a time, back when Yair Lapid was still speaking to me, he characterized the critical articles that I wrote as "hurling Molotov cocktails" on the media. I didn't go that far, I merely sought to let the hot air out of that small group (which no one elected) that habitually insists on telling the Israeli public what to think, what to like and who to vote for. In any case, Lapid's metaphor rings much more true if applied to the ongoing onslaught, waged by that same media that I supposedly attacked, against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's address to Congress this week. Incidentally, Netanyahu's speech was about a topic that enjoys a wide consensus in Israel, and that is directly linked to the very existence of Israel. This time the Molotov cocktails were hurled by the media at all of us. 

The intensity of the Obama administration's objection to Netanyahu's speech was proof of just how important it actually was. This massive media coverage of this objection ultimately compelled many in the U.S. and around the world (including the Arab world) to tune in to Netanyahu's speech. The driver of every taxi I rode in Washington this week talked to me about the speech. Most of the American public was not aware of the things that Netanyahu pointed out in his address, which served both to deepen the public debate on the topic and to intensify the criticism against the emerging deal with Iran. "It's just words," the minimizers said. True, but words lead to action. 

The world was mesmerized by Netanyahu's words. One association that came to mind during the speech was the verse: "For out of Zion shall go forth the law" (Isaiah 2:3). A representative of the Jewish people stands before the leadership of the most important superpower in the world and urges taking a different path than the one it is currently on. 

Netanyahu's detractors and their various collaborators are trying to scare us with "an unprecedented rift" and "immeasurable damage" to Israel-U.S. relations. In my view, when it comes to anything having to do with Iran, Israel must think about what is best for itself rather than worry about offending anyone. Regardless, the stories about a rift are simply untrue. There may be tension and mutual dislike between Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama, but that's between them, not between Israel as a state and the U.S. It would be wise to revisit the incredible results of a Gallup poll conducted two weeks ago, at the height of the so-called "rift," which revealed that more than 70% of Americans support Israel! Even among Democrats there is a clear majority of Israel supporters. 

2. 

When I read Yedioth Ahronoth columnist Nahum Barnea's recap of Netanyahu's speech this week I got the feeling that the only reason Barnea -- an Israel Prize laureate -- traveled to Washington was to undo any positive impression that Netanyahu's speech might leave. The hatred that permeates Barnea's heart has apparently disrupted his judgment, because according to him it isn't just Netanyahu who has a billionaire patron but the entire U.S. Congress as well. The cardinal sin committed by the elected American lawmakers was, according to Barnea, that "they welcomed Netanyahu with open arms, with a fondness far beyond the protocol; far beyond the expected politeness." And how did Barnea explain this scandalous behavior? Pay close attention: "The members of Congress ... cheer when told to do so by individuals sitting in the wings." 

Barnea explained that "Jewish billionaires supervised their vassals in the hall below. They came to see the fruits of their investments with their own eyes. American politics are currently enslaved by big money." 

I think this madness requires a second reading. Barnea is actually saying that Jewish wealth controls American politics. Is Yedioth Ahronoth reprinting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Ostensibly, when making such a weighty accusation, Barnea should have named the Jewish billionaires who are supposedly pulling the puppet strings in Congress. But no billionaire save Sheldon Adelson was named. He spoke of multiple "Jewish billionaires" sitting in the wings, making sure the members of Congress cheered for Netanyahu. Poor politicians, they were forced to cheer. So where are these billionaires? Barnea simply used the plural "Jewish billionaires" and then repeated the "Adelson and others." Just throwing words around. Who would check? In his rush to ridicule and minimize the importance of the speech, Barnea accused the U.S. legislature of being afflicted with corruption.

This is not just about money, but something far worse. In Barnea's view, no one in the world, not even America's elected officials, is capable of free thought except for New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, a number of other Molotov cocktail wielding members of the left-wing media and himself. Therefore, according to this logic, it is impossible for Netanyahu to have said anything worthwhile, and if the Americans are cheering for him then there must be something wrong with them. This is a well-known tactic, especially among the Left: Attacking the person (argumentum ad hominem) instead of the person's point (argumentum ad rem). Something along the lines of the latest Zionist Union campaign slogan "it's us or him." 

Say Barnea believed that Netanyahu's arguments were justified and that his address was important, historic even. Could he have expressed that view in his newspaper, with longtime Netanyahu rival and Yedioth Ahronoth publisher Arnon (Noni) Mozes watching from the wings? It is not just Barnea at the center of this debate. In this instance, Barnea symbolizes many of Israel's journalists. 

3.

In the famous allegory of the cave, Plato describes people who have lived their entire lives chained to a cave wall. All they have ever seen are shadows of the reality happening outside the cave as they are reflected by a fire on the cave walls. Since shadows are all they have ever seen, they are convinced that reality is nothing more than shadows. The ones who manage to free themselves of the chains and see reality as it truly is are the philosophers. And indeed, only philosophers are worthy of leadership in Plato's ideal republic, because only they know true reality. Israeli thinker Yeshayahu Leibowitz used to say that Plato was the "father of fascism." 

The last month in the Israeli media served to solidify the idea that Barnea and his gang are trying to impose a form of media fascism on us -- a minority of journalists who view themselves as above all others, who were never chosen by any public, but know better than us what is good for us, how we should think and what is true. They are not motivated by any desire to make the world better, but rather by a deep contempt for the masses -- the "70% who don't read books but do read Israel Hayom" as author Amos Oz declared recently. As far as Barnea is concerned, it is not only Israel Hayom's readership that is still chained to a cave wall. The members of the U.S. Congress are right there with them.

Our sages taught us how to distinguish between the students of Abraham, our forefather, and the students of wicked Balaam: "Whosoever possesses these three qualities belongs to the disciples of Abraham our father: a generous eye, a humble spirit, and a meek soul. But he who possesses the three opposite qualities -- an evil eye, a proud spirit, and a haughty soul -- is of the disciples of Balaam the wicked" (Pirkey Avot 5:22). 

Balaam's strength was in his mouth, and he used it to do magic. His success led to "an arrogant spirit" -- hubris, a contempt for reality and a feeling of omnipotence. Eventually this led to the development of an evil eye that distorted reality. Everything was evil to him, especially his opponents. Everything except himself.

It is not Netanyahu they despise, but the camp that Netanyahu represents. That is why they ostracize anyone who speaks well of him, works for him or vouches for him. So that no one dares go near him. Barnea's headline -- "one of their own" -- was no coincidence. Netanyahu is not "one of us," he contended. But in doing so, Barnea actually took himself out of the group.

Dror Eydar

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=11821

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

Netanyahu's Timely Warning on Iran - Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison

by Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison

Like Churchill, Netanyahu could say: “We fight by ourselves alone, but we fight not for ourselves alone.” Today, it is Benjamin Netanyahu and not the American President who represents the forces of civilization standing against the bloody tide of barbarism.

Iran is the gravest danger to the U.S. and the world. Not ISIS. Not Boko Haram. Not Kony. Not Al Shabab. Iran on the path to a nuclear weapon.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to a joint session of Congress helped refocus the distracted Obama administration’s attention on this rising threat. It did not force them, unfortunately, to reconsider their ill-advised course. But at least it made President Obama and Secretary Kerry respond to the case made by Netanyuahu before the American people and the world.

Our attention has been distracted of late by the medieval horrors of ISIS (Islamist Savagery Inspired by Satan). They have beheaded and burned and crucified innocents in their drive to rivet the attention of the world to their barbarism and menace. Of course, ISIS must be dealt with.

There is nothing ISIS has done that Iran has not done. Many of the 241 U.S. Marines and Navy corpsmen murdered in their Beirut barracks in 1983 were beheaded and burned to death when the Mullahs of Tehran invented suicide bombing and sent their catspaws, Hizb'allah, to carry it out.

History is helpful here. President Franklin D. Roosevelt had to face an enraged nation at the start of World War II. Japan’s sneak attack on Pearl Harbor meant there would be  a demand for strong retaliation. FDR did not ignore the public outcry for retaliation.

He sent Col. Jimmy Doolittle on that famous “Thirty seconds over Tokyo” bombing raid just months after that “day of infamy” -- Dec. 7, 1941. And he sent the U.S. Marines to battle island-by-island on a bloody path through the South and Central Pacific.

The Japanese, too, burned American prisoners to death. And gruesomely beheaded them. They even ate Americans they captured on Chichi Jima.

But Franklin D. Roosevelt never lost sight of the main enemy -- Hitler's Germany. Without ever publicly announcing it, he resolutely pursued a strategy of “Germany First.” As a result of his wise leadership, the Allies in WWII exerted 85% of their joint effort against the Nazi menace.

Why? It may well have been because Roosevelt had been informed, as early as 1939 in a letter from Nobel Prize-winning physicist Albert Einstein, that Hitler could develop a nuclear weapon. FDR exercised leadership of a higher order in resisting the understandable desire of Americans to hit Japan first and hardest.

When the Roosevelt White House announced the president would be addressing the nation on world affairs, and that it would be helpful to have a map at hand, millions of Americans rushed to map stores to be prepared. That was the level of respect we had for his leadership.

There is probably no more shameful episode in the annals of American diplomacy than the shabby treatment of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by this president. The Israeli leader, in responding to Congress’ invitation, equaled Winston Churchill’s record of three times speaking before a Joint Session.

Like Churchill, Netanyahu could say: “We fight by ourselves alone, but we fight not for ourselves alone.” Today, it is Benjamin Netanyahu and not the American President who represents the forces of civilization standing against the bloody tide of barbarism.

President Obama has sought the mullahs’ help in combating ISIS. That would be like asking Hitler to help us against Japan. Mr. Obama -- in the memorable word of his predecessor -- has misunderestimated the threat of Iran since he took office. He sent them Persian New Year greetings, he turned a blind eye to their shooting down democracy demonstrators in the streets of Tehran.

Even now, with “talks” proceeding with the mullahs, with their foreign minister, Javad Zarif, screaming and yelling at the hapless John Kerry in Geneva (so violently that security guards came running), with their Hizb'allah agents threatening Israel with mass murder daily, President Obama fundamentally misperceives the Iranian threat.

This week, Iran engaged in military exercises using “swarming” techniques to attack an exact replica of our aircraft carrier USS Nimitz. Can anyone dream that the U.S. secretarty of state in 1941, Cordell Hull, would have blandly continued his peace talks with Japanese envoys Kichisaburo Nomura and Saburo Kurusu if we had known that Japan was simultaneously planning their attack on our carriers and battleships at Pearl Harbor?

Let us all pray that Netanyahu and Israel (or Israel’s intelligence service, the Mossad) can stop Iran, for it is clear that President Obama and Secretary Kerry are only paving their pathway to nuclear status. If the Israelis succeed where the Obama administration has failed, we may once again have reason to thank God for Israel.


Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison are senior Fellows at the Family Research Council in Washington, DC.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/netanyahus_timely_warning_on_iran.html

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

What Are You Really Willing to Do to Stop Terrorists From Entering the U.S.? - Michael Cutler

by Michael Cutler

For all too many of our leaders, while they claim that they would stop at nothing to protect America and Americans, the reality is far different. Despite their claims to the contrary, they will not do anything to truly secure our borders or instill real integrity to the immigration system or the process by which applications for visas or immigration benefits are adjudicated.

The question that serves as the title of my commentary today is the question every American, irrespective of political affiliation, must ask their elected senators and congressional representatives.

For all too many of our leaders, while they claim that they would stop at nothing to protect America and Americans, the reality is far different. Despite their claims to the contrary, they will not do anything to truly secure our borders or instill real integrity to the immigration system or the process by which applications for visas or immigration benefits are adjudicated.

This is the dire reality our nation and our citizens face today.

My article today will provide crystal clear evidence that our immigration system has no integrity and that this lack of integrity threatens the survival of our nation and our citizens and that nothing being proposed under the aegis of Comprehensive Immigration Reform will address these deadly vulnerabilities.

The importance of the question about what would our leaders be willing to do to prevent the entry and embedding of terrorists and the issue of terrorism came into sharp focus during the stirring and powerful speech given by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on March 3, 2015 when he addressed a joint session of the U.S. Congress to voice his extreme concerns about what the sponsorship of terrorism by Iran not only means for Israel but for the United States as well. Indeed, during his remarks the Prime Minister referred to the unsuccessful attempts, over three years ago, by Iranian-backed terrorists to bomb the Saudi Embassy in Washington, DC and kill the Saudi ambassador. The Israeli embassy in our Capitol was also a potential bombing target for those terrorists.

On March 21, 2012 the House Committee on Homeland Security that was then chaired by New York Congressman Peter King conducted a hearing into these planned operations. The topic of the hearing was, “Iran, Hezbollah, and the Threat to the Homeland.”

The same day as that hearing, the Huffington Post published a report about that hearing, “Peter King: Iran May Have ‘Hundreds’ Of Hezbollah Agents In U.S.”

Here is an excerpt from that news report:

“As Iran moves closer to nuclear weapons and there is increasing concern over war between Iran and Israel, we must also focus on Iran’s secret operatives and their number one terrorist proxy force, Hezbollah, which we know is in America,” said New York Rep. Peter King at a Wednesday hearing of his committee.
The hearing, which featured former government officials and the director of intelligence analysis for the New York Police Department, follows a foiled plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, D.C., and testimony by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in late January that Iran’s leaders are “more willing to conduct an attack inside the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime.”

On April 21, 2010 the Washington Times published a disturbing report, “Iran boosts Qods shock troops in Venezuela,” predicated on a Pentagon report to Congress on Iran’s military operations in Latin America. Here is an excerpt:

The report gives no details on the activities of the Iranians in Venezuela and Latin America. Iranian-backed terrorists have conducted few attacks in the region. However, U.S. intelligence officials say Qods operatives are developing networks of terrorists in the region who could be called to attack the United States in the event of a conflict over Iran’s nuclear program.

On May 30, 2013 UPI posted a report, “Immigrant allegedly failed to reveal Hezbollah membership.”

Here is an excerpt from this report:

Wissam Allouche, 44, who became a citizen in 2009, was arrested last week by the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force, the San Antonio Express-News reported Thursday. He has also been charged with failing to reveal membership in Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group classified as terrorist by the U.S. government, when he sought a security clearance.
A federal judge ordered Allouche held without bail after a hearing Wednesday.
Allouche has lived in the United States for more than a decade. His attorney, Cynthia Orr, said he owned a gas station at one point.
Allouche formerly worked for L3 Communications, a military contractor that supplies interpreters and translators. He spent several months with the company in Iraq.

It is inconceivable that any politician would not want to prevent terrorists from entering the United States and launching deadly terrorist attacks. However, the failures of our immigration system undeniably enable international terrorists to enter the United States and, indeed, facilitates their ability to hide in plain sight and embed themselves in communities across our nation as they go about their deadly preparations to launch an attack.

There is nothing in any proposed legislation that addresses or remedies these critical failures in the immigration system.

When airliners crash the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board), the FAA and other organizations dispatch investigators to the crash site to find out what caused the crash — not only to assign blame for purposes of litigation but to make certain that all of the failures that contributed to the disaster are identified and effectively addressed to prevent future similar tragedies.

On September 11, 2001 the United States suffered its worst terrorist attacks. The United States government convened the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States for much the same reason that the NTSB and other agencies send investigators to the site of a crash.

Here is essentially the mission statement for the commission which includes the links to the actual report, as well as the two staff reports (monographs):

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks.
On July 22, 2004 the Commission released its public report, which is available for download from this site. The report is also available in bookstores nationwide and from the Government Printing Office.
On August 21, 2004 the Commission released two staff monographs, available for download along with other staff statements on this site.

No reasonable person would ignore the findings and recommendations of an NTSB investigation into a deadly plane crash. No sane leader could or should ignore the findings of the 9/11 Commission’s investigation into an attack that killed more than 3,000 innocent victims, reduced an iconic complex in the heart of New York City into a rubble and turned lower Manhattan, a peaceful field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania and our Pentagon into virtual “war zones,” especially when, as the commission noted, it was “mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks.”

Yet where the immigration component of national security is concerned, inexplicably, politicians from both sides of the aisle are not only not willing to abide by the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Report — they are not even willing to talk about it when the issue of immigration is raised.

The 9/11 Commission Staff Report on Terrorist Travel (monograph) detailed numerous examples of instances where terrorists not only made use of visa and immigration benefit fraud to enter the United States but to also embed themselves in the United States. While advocates for Comprehensive Immigration Reform have established the issue of supposedly securing the US/Mexican border, a process they claim would require many years, as the sole prerequisite for providing unknown millions of illegal aliens with lawful status and official identity documents.

Here is an excerpt from that report that makes the above issues crystal clear:

Although there is evidence that some land and sea border entries (of terrorists) without inspection occurred, these conspirators mainly subverted the legal entry system by entering at airports.
In doing so, they relied on a wide variety of fraudulent documents, on aliases, and on government corruption. Because terrorist operations were not suicide missions in the early to mid-1990s, once in the United States terrorists and their supporters tried to get legal immigration status that would permit them to remain here, primarily by committing serial, or repeated, immigration fraud, by claiming political asylum, and by marrying Americans. Many of these tactics would remain largely unchanged and undetected throughout the 1990s and up to the 9/11 attack.
Thus, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity. It would remain largely unknown, since no agency of the United States government analyzed terrorist travel patterns until after 9/11. This lack of attention meant that critical opportunities to disrupt terrorist travel and, therefore, deadly terrorist operations were missed.

Make no mistake, that border that is supposed to separate the United States from Mexico absolutely must be made secure and not over the next few years but as soon as possible. The testimony provided at the hearing Chairman King convened on March 21, 2013 that I noted above made it clear that terrorists from the Middle East are operating in Latin America — especially in the Tri-Border Region of Brazil. Witnesses at the hearing reported that Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations are working cooperatively with drug trafficking organizations to smuggle cocaine and other drugs into the United States to fund terrorist operations.

However, the United States has 50 “border states” and virtually all of the other components of the immigrations system lack integrity. On July 7, 2014 FrontPage Magazine published my article, “Border Security and the Immigration Colander” in which I compared the immigration system to a colander with many holes in it. Simply offering to secure the U.S./Mexican border to address all of the failures of the immigration system is the equivalent of plugging just one hole at the bottom of a colander and then suggesting that it could then be used as a bucket to carry water.

This lack of integrity has been well known for many years and has cost many American lives and I fear many more will pay the “ultimate price” in the future.

The lack of integrity to the immigration system is mirrored — perhaps surpassed — by an abject lack of integrity of our political leaders and those who rise to high positions within the law enforcement communities on the local, state and federal level who are willing to parrot the words of the politicians they work for.

On January 23, 2015 FrontPage Magazine posted my article, “Sleeper Cells: The Immigration Component of the Threat” in which I noted that one of the ways to distract people from understanding the nexus between terrorism and immigration is to focus on “homegrown” sleepers. As I noted in my piece:

The “solution” politicians and journalists who oppose effective immigration law enforcement have devised to resolve the quandary that this creates is to describe sleeper agents as being “homegrown,” hoping that Americans will ignore the obvious: That foreign nationals are seeking to enter the United States to launch terror attacks.
Incredibly, even such foreign national terrorists have come to be referred to as being “homegrown” by journalists, politicians and high-ranking members of the law enforcement community who should know better. This is nothing short of Orwellian propaganda.
Former NYPD Police Commissioner Ray Kelly apparently fell victim to this mis-identification of foreign terrorists when he described Faisal Shahzad, the so-called “Times Square Bomber” as being “homegrown.” The title of a New York Post article, published on May 11, 2010, quoted Commissioner Kelly, “Kelly: NYC bomb suspect ‘homegrown,’” and contained the following statement:

The Times Square threat was “a classic case of homegrown terrorism,” Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said at a briefing for private security executives.

Shahzad had legally immigrated to the United States when he was roughly 20 years old. How on earth is he “homegrown”? He may not have come to the United States with the intentions of ultimately carrying out a terrorist attack, however it is impossible to know when he made that decision. What is clear is that he is absolutely not “homegrown.”
In fact, in that article, Kelly was also quoted as referring to Najibullah Zazi, the leader of a group that planned a suicide bombing of the New York City subway system, as also being “homegrown,” blatantly ignoring the fact that Zazi had immigrated to the United States from his native Pakistan when he was a teenager.

In January 1993 a Pakistani national by the name of Mir Kansi stood outside CIA Headquarters with an AK-47 and opened fire on the vehicles of CIA officials reporting for work on that cold January morning in Virginia. When the smoke dissipated, two CIA officer lay dead and three others were seriously wounded. Kansi fled the United States and was ultimately brought back to stand trial. He was found guilty and executed for his crimes. He had applied for political asylum before he engaged in that murderous rampage.

Just one month later, on February 26, 1993 a bomb-laden truck was parked in the garage under the World Trade Center complex and detonated. The blast nearly brought one of the 110-story towers down sideways. As a result of the explosion, 6 innocent people were killed, over one thousand people were injured and an estimated one half billion dollars in damages were inflicted on that iconic complex of buildings located just blocks from Wall Street.

That attack was also carried out by alien terrorists who managed to not only game the visa process in order to enter the United States, but the immigration benefits program that enabled them to remain in the United States and embed themselves as they went about their preparations to carry out that attack.

On May 20, 1997 I participated in my first Congressional hearing. That hearing was conducted by the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims and was entitled: “Visa Fraud And Immigration Benefits Application Fraud.”

That hearing was called specifically because of those two terrorist attacks that had been carried out more than four years before that hearing was held.

The 9/11 Commission found that of 94 terrorists who were identified as operating in our country in the decade leading up to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, some 59 or roughly two-thirds of them were found to have committed immigration fraud to enter our country and/or embed themselves in our country.

Incredibly, nothing of substance has been done to truly combat either visa fraud or immigration fraud.

On February 24, 2015 Progressives For Immigration Reform posted my commentary, “The Immigration Factor –Naturalized U.S. Citizen Added to FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists List.”

Clearly the nexus between failures of the immigration system and the process by which visas are issued have been linked to previous terrorist attacks and yet the vulnerabilities have been greatly exacerbated as the administration hands out Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) and other official identity documents to millions of illegal aliens on the basis of unilateral executive orders and policy decisions.

While the 9/11 Commission called for tightening up on the process by which applications for visas are adjudicated, on September 11, 2001 the citizens of countries from 26 countries were able to enter the United States under the wrong-headed and dangerous Visa Waiver Program. Today the citizens of 38 countries do not require visas to enter the United States.

On July 12, 2011 Californians for Population Stabilization posted my article, “Visa Waiver Program Endangers our Safety and Security.” Back then fewer countries participated in the Visa Waiver Program, but the concerns I voiced then remain exactly the same today. In my commentary I noted that:

Our government is apparently responding to the extreme pressure being brought to bear by the Chamber of Commerce and executives of the travel, hospitality and related industries under the auspices of a program known as the “Discover America Partnership.” That consortium has now been joined by the National Retailer Federation (NRF).
These industries’ executives have absolutely no expertise in national security or in issues where border security are concerned and the visa issuing processes are concerned. Yet they have staked out a position because they are motivated by nothing more than greed. The more people who will travel to the United States, the more people who are likely to stay in hotels, eat in the restaurants, attend Broadway shows and buy the souvenirs and other trinkets peddled in cities around the United States.

On May 11, 2006 I testified before the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on International Relations on the topic, “Visa Overstays: Can We Bar the Terrorist Door?”

Our nation’s “leaders” from both the Democratic and Republican parties never acknowledge that the 9/11 Commission warned about the lack of integrity to the lawful entry process conducted at ports of entry.

Similarly, they never acknowledge that visa fraud and immigration benefit fraud permeate those systems and those failures undermine national security. They never acknowledge that as bad as things are now, a massive amnesty program that would provide millions of illegal aliens with identity documents without the capacity to interview them in person — let alone conduct routine field investigations to combat fraud — would be catastrophic for national security.

The administration’s immigration policies that now require enforcement personnel at DHS to ignore aliens illegally present in the United States who evade the inspections process conducted at ports of entry and to ignore those aliens who violate the terms of their lawful admission into the United States provide millions of illegal aliens with ample opportunities to hide in plain sight. This is further exacerbated by providing illegal aliens with lawful status and official identity documents without in-person interviews or field investigations to combat fraud.

Now Congress has signed off on funding operations at the DHS including this program that should garner the administration the “MVP Award” from such terrorist organizations as Hezbollah, ISIS and al-Qaeda.

Additionally, because of the huge number of aliens who are illegally present in the United States, likely tens of millions of illegal aliens, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation being pushed by both Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and Senate would suffer a lack of integrity as well.

This program would violate commonsense and the clear findings, recommendations and, indeed, warnings of the 9/11 Commission and its staff of federal agents and attorneys.

My parents raised me to believe that the only “dumb questions” were the ones I did not ask. All Americans must ask their elected representatives questions about why they are not even willing to mention that there was a 9/11 Commission, let alone its findings, recommendations and warnings about the nexus that exists between immigration and national security and terrorism.

These questions about immigration and national security that our citizens must pose to our leaders have never been more critical or relevant than they are today.


Michael Cutler

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/michael-cutler/what-are-you-really-willing-to-do-to-stop-terrorists-from-entering-the-u-s/

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

Why Obama's Criticism of Netanayu's Speech Is Flawed - Ryan Mauro

by Ryan Mauro

Politico's article about what Obama's team thinks of Netanyahu's speech are the talking points for those wish to bury their heads in the sand about the Iran.

U.S. President Barack Obama with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Politico has published an article listing the "5 things President Obama's team thinks Benjamin Netanyahu got wrong," laying out the talking points for those wish to bury their heads in the sand about the Iranian nuclear threat.

1. There cannot be more sanctions and sanctions don't work.

The first false rebuttal is contradictory. It maintains that "years of stiff sanctions have failed to halt—or even slow—the progress of Iran's nuclear program." Are we supposed to believe that Iran came to the table out of a desire for American affection?

The Obama Administration itself says that sanctions brought the Iranians to the table. It only stands to reason that sanctions—or at least the threat of much harsher sanctions—will likewise influence their calculations.

The claim that sanctions has failed to impede the nuclear program is unverifiable and almost certainly inaccurate. Sanctions resulted in less revenue, a hampered infrastructure as entities and key personnel had their assets frozen and denial of access to important technology.  Iran’s nuclear program has been going on for decades, and sanctions are a reasonable explanation as to why their ultimate ambitions have not been realized.

The officials and experts interviewed by Politico say "more sanctions are not a realistic option." Why not?

There are countless Iranian entities that could be sanctioned by the Treasury Department for involvement in weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, corruption and human rights abuses. The sanctions bill proposed by Congress would incrementally slap different sectors of the Iranian economy with sanctions. The bottom line is that there is plenty left to target.

It is argued that the international community will not participate in tougher sanctions. The sanctions bill is designed to address that very problem by threatening foreign companies doing business in Iran. No successful businessman will choose the Iranian market over the American market if his primary concern is profit.

The response further says that sanctions won't work because the price tag on Iran's program is $100 billion already, proving the regime's determination. This only underscores the point that Iran is dead-set on achieving nuclear breakout capacity. This fact can just as easily be used to question the viability of the reported deal.

2. A nuclear domino effect probably won't happen.

President Obama's own former Secretary of State and likely Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton disagrees. In 2008, she said the same thing that Netanyahu did at the time. "I can imagine that they [Iran's neighbors] would be rushing to obtain nuclear weapons themselves," Clinton said. She also stated that only a U.S. "security umbrella" might persuade them not to. Iran's neighbors have made it forcefully clear in the past eight years that they don't see the U.S. as reliable, so this isn't an option.

The Middle East nuclear domino has been underway for years. It is widely understood that the Saudis financed the Pakistani nuclear program so they could receive nukes if deemed necessary. Arab leaders privately say that this is exactly what they will do and sometimes hint at it publicly.

The nearing of a nuclear deal has apparently motivated at least two Arab countries to begin developing their own nuclear infrastructure. Saudi Arabia and South Korea just signed a deal for two nuclear reactors and Egypt and Russia agreed to build one last month.

One part of Politico’s reasoning that a nuclear domino effect is unlikely to happen is so ridiculous that it's nearly comical. The article states, "As Iran has demonstrated, developing nuclear arms is very costly, both politically and economically." Well, what has Iran been doing since 1979?

Furthermore, the economic and political cost of developing nuclear weapons would be dramatically less for Iran's neighbors than it has been for Iran. The U.S. will not place sanctions on Saudi Arabia or any of its Gulf partners. Any political blowback will be minimal because everyone will understand that the development of nuclear arms by the Gulf States is a response the Iranian threat.  Furthermore, these oil-rich regimes have plenty of money to throw around to finance such programs. 

3. The Iranian regime is changing.

This assertion is missing a rather critical element: Evidence. Iran's behavior hasn't changed one iota except that the arms it gives to terrorists are more advanced and now its suppression of freedom has to include internet censorship.

Politico’s analysis treats Iran as if it were a democracy. It says Iran has "strong reformist elements and saw huge political protests in 2009. The 2013 election of President Hassan Rouhani was a vote for change and reform against the hardliners."

Rouhani’s election was not equivalent to a general election as this language suggests. Presidential contests in Iran are more like party primaries. His presidential candidacy was approved of by the very same regime that the Green Revolution challenged. The vetting process is so stringent that the Guardian Council only allows a mere two percent of the candidates to run. It is within that small extremist circle that Rouhani appears "moderate."

Moreover, human rights have only gotten worse under Rouhani’s tenure. Either his office is virtually meaningless or he is just another manipulative politician who knew what words to use. BBC News points out that his campaign criticized the regime's bloody crackdown on student protests in 1999, but he condemned those same students at the time.

If he had his way in 1999, the opposition movement would never have reached that point. Here's what Rouhani said at the time:

"At dusk yesterday we received a decisive revolutionary order to crush mercilessly and monumentally any move of these opportunist elements wherever it may occur. From today our people shall witness how in the arena our law enforcement force ... shall deal with these opportunists and riotous elements, if they simply dare to show their faces."

Rouhani's election isn't the fruition of the 2009 Green Movement. He endorsed pro-regime rallies that took place after the Green Revolution was crushed. Rouhani is closer to Khamenei than Ahmadinejad was.

On the nuclear issue, Rouhani has bragged about using deception in negotiations to expand the nuclear program.

The Obama Administration officials and supporters interviewed by Politico in this section point to the age of Supreme Leader Khamenei of 75 years old and reports that he's in bad shape. It paints a dynamic of old "hardliners" like Khamenei declining and "moderates" like Rouhani rising.

Here's how the process of choosing the Supreme Leader works. The filling of this position is decided by the Assembly of Experts whose members are "elected" to eight-year terms. However, all candidacies need to be approved by the Guardian Council. Who picks the members of the Council? The Supreme Leader.

Khamenei's replacement will be like him or even worse. A member of the Assembly of Experts is Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi and he is said to be trying to build a coalition in the body to appoint him as successor. He is also said to be close to Khamenei's son, another possible successor.

Mesbah-Yazdi is often referred to as the spiritual guide for former President Ahmadinejad, who is also speculated to be planning a return to politics directly or through allies.  Mesbah-Yazdi wrote in 2005 that the “most advanced weapons must be produced inside our country even if enemies don’t like it. There is no reason they have the right to produce special types of weapons, while other countries are deprived of it.”

Another cleric in the city of Qom who is a follower of Mesbah-Yazdi issued a fatwa in 2006 that said it is “only natural” for Iran to build nukes and “for the first time … the use of nuclear weapons may not constitute a problem, according to sharia.”

The forecast isn't one of brighter days. It's of the same or possibly even worse days.

4. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will stop Iran.

The Politico article states, "But even after such a [10-year] nuclear deal expires, Iran will remain bound by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which it ratified in 1970 … Iran has also pledged to accept additional IAEA monitoring and inspection."

The Iranian regime has a long history of breaking agreements. Iran is already in breach of it.

The text of the treaty says, "States must refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any States or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations…"

Israel is not a signatory to the treaty but it is a member of the United Nations. Iran's constant genocidal pledges to destroy Israel therefore violate the treaty. Other violations include its threats and use of proxy warfare throughout the region.

Article II of the treaty prevents non-nuclear signatories from pursuing explicit weapons-related work. That's exactly what Iran has done at its Parchin site and elsewhere. The IAEA says Iran continues to fail to provide explanations for evidence showing that it violated the treaty by working on nuclear bombs.

Article III of the treaty requires signatories to work with the IAEA to verify that they are in compliance. Again, the IAEA says that Iran is not doing this. Iran has repeatedly violated this by hiding nuclear sites.

And here's the weakest part of Politico’s statements: Article X of the treaty says signatories "have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country." All that is required is a three-month notice.

5. There's no such thing as a better deal.

The Politico article summarizes, "A significantly better deal isn't realistic. Iran will not accept it." Harsher sanctions have not even been threatened, so the confidence in that statement is unwarranted.

The Obama administration itself argues that Iran's nuclear program is subject to a cost-and-benefit analysis. If that is so, then we should threaten to raise the costs. If limited sanctions fomented the interim deal, then the possibility of tougher ones will increase the chances of a viable long-term deal.

It's worth recalling that Iran completely suspended uranium enrichment in the past. The deal's supporters say Iran will never dismantle its nuclear program. That may be true, but recent history shows it is willing to suspend its nuclear activity. Under the Bush administration, Iran suspended its enrichment activities several times.This was done under Supreme Leader Khamenei, who still rules today. Now, Iran faces even greater economic difficulties and is suffering from low oil prices.

Recent history and current economic factors indicate Iran would be willing to settle for much less than it is being offered today. Short-term agreements that suspend enrichment are preferable to long-term deals that limit enrichment.

Avoiding war and achieving a viable deal are goals worth striving towards, but those goals can only be achieved if our negotiating premises are rooted in reality. If these responses published by Politico accurately reflect the beliefs of the U.S. negotiators, then we are misunderstanding the Iranian regime and our diplomacy is doomed to fail with potentially disastrous consequences. 


Video: Say No to a Nuclear Iran




Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.

Source: http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/why-obamas-criticism-netanayus-speech-flawed

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

Britain Funding Separateness, Not Integration - Samuel Westrop

by Samuel Westrop

Increasingly, segregated religious communities receive state funds in order to remain separate. That extremists would gain a foothold seems inevitable.
"We believe that single faith schools will mean more discrimination and a greater stranglehold of the most conservative, anti-women and communal individuals over our children's education and our communities as a whole." — Spokesperson for South Asian Women in London, 2002.
"Instead of greater integration, this political creed [multiculturalism] has promoted separatism by emphasising differences and encouraging minority ethnic groups to cling to the customs of their homeland. In Birmingham, this has resulted in the rejection of western values by the governing bodies of too many Muslim-dominated schools." — Manzoor Moghal, British Muslim writer and activist.
Britain's multicultural doctrine was introduced with good intentions. Its failures, however, have outweighed its benefits.

The Daily Telegraph reports that the British education watchdog, Ofsted, has placed yet another British school "in special measures... with its head and governors likely to be removed."

Small Heath School, which has a majority of Muslim pupils, is one of a number of Birmingham schools censured by Ofsted after investigations found a "narrowing of the curriculum."

The journalist Andrew Gilligan suggests that concerns over Small Heath School have sparked fears of a "resurgence of the 'Trojan Horse' plot," a concerted attempt by Islamist groups to infiltrate and Islamize British schools. The plot was first uncovered in 2013. A government report into the accusations, published in 2014, concluded that there had been a "co-ordinated, deliberate and sustained action to introduce an intolerant and aggressive Islamist ethos into some schools in the city."

Shanaz Khan, the head teacher of Small Heath School, was previously the deputy head teacher in Cardiff of Cathays High School, which was attended by two British jihadists before they headed off to Syria to fight with ISIS.

At the Cardiff school, Islamic preachers taught children that music and contact between boys and girls were "not permitted in Islam." According to Gilligan,

"Shanaz Khan, the new head teacher, who started in September, was heavily backed by several of the key plotters in Trojan Horse, which drove out non-Muslim head teachers and imposed hard-line Islamic practices at a number of state schools in Birmingham."

Small Heath School and its head teacher, Shanaz Khan.

Would anyone have predicted, before the Trojan Horse plot was revealed in 2013, that a conspiracy to impose hard-line Islamic beliefs could possibly exist within the British education system?

Well, yes. The influence of extremist Islam within some British schools was hardly a secret. As far back as 1996, The Independent reported that British schools with large numbers of Muslim pupils were already providing for hard-line Islamic practises. The article reveals, in fact, that at the very same Small Heath School,

"Muslim governors are increasingly making demands. For example, Islamic law forbids drawing the human form... Some parents also object to the use of musical instruments in music lessons, fearing their connection with pop music and Western youth culture, which they see as riddled with sex and drugs. There have even been requests for separate play areas and separate classes for boys and girls."

It turns out, in fact, that the topic of Islamic extremism in British schools has been known about and discussed for decades. In 1993, a teacher at Park View School in Birmingham told the local authorities that the school's board of governors was "taken over by a Muslim sect." In 2013, Park View School was named as one of the schools that fell victim to the Trojan Horse plot.

As early as 2002, a spokesperson for a community group of South Asian women in London stated: "We believe that single faith schools will mean more discrimination and a greater stranglehold of the most conservative, anti-women and communal individuals over our children's education and our communities as a whole."

In 2004, the British Muslim writer and activist, Manzoor Moghal, warned that by providing taxpayer funding for segregated Islamic schools, and by accommodating the demands of Islamic lobby groups for "substantial changes in the culture, teaching methods, and even the curriculum of mainstream state schools," Britain risked encouraging "ignorance, hatred and violent conflict."

After the bombings of the London underground in 2005, the media's attention focused quickly on the problem of extremism in schools and universities. Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary at that time, declared that Islamic schools that encouraged "isolationism" and extremism would be shut down. A number of documentaries produced secretly-recorded footage of teachers at British Islamic schools "teaching pupils as young as 11 years of age contempt for other religions and wider society." In 2006, The Times reported that students at an Iranian regime-linked Islamic school in London were being taught to regard non-Muslims as "filth," and Jews and Christians likened to pigs and dogs.
In 2009, David Cameron, then the leader of the opposition, asked Prime Minister Gordon Brown why schools run by Hizb ut-Tahrir -- an Islamist organization that promotes violence against Jews and the West -- had received £113,000 of government money.

Also in 2009, the author and academic Dr. Denis MacEoin wrote a report on Britain's Islamic schools. It found evidence that a number of Muslim schools were linked to extreme Islamist networks and employed teachers who promoted, in addition to anti-Semitism, hatred towards women and the West.

In 2010, the Secretary of Education, Michael Gove, stated, "in both Surrey and Birmingham there were genuine dangers due to extremist influence in state schools."

In 2012, the Daily Telegraph reported that a "secret memo" published by the Department for Education warned that officials were "struggling to tackle extremism in state and private schools."

The Telegraph further revealed that the government was unable to cope because officials and ministers did not have "detailed information about the religious orientation of the groups and movements behind all independent faith schools."

Warnings of Islamic extremism, a pervasive threat in Britain, were ignored until the problem became widespread.

Although, for instance, the government and the Charity Commission have finally started to investigate the large number of British charities running aid convoys to Syria, Gatestone Institute revealed two years ago that these charities were linked to extremist groups and glorifying Islamist terrorists such as Anwar Al-Awlaki.

Similarly, in 2014, although the Home Secretary Theresa May announced that the government was working to stop extremist broadcasts on Islamic television stations, her announcement came more than five years after the Quilliam Foundation, a Muslim think-tank, issued warnings about the problem.

Moreover, although Prime Minister David Cameron announced in 2011 that the government would no longer give counter-extremism funds to hard-line Islamic groups, other politicians and commentators had repeatedly warned about this problem years earlier.


Why, then, do these corrosive influences remain ignored for so long?

Even though not directly connected to Islamic extremism, in the case of Rotherham, a small town in England, an independent inquiry which examined the sexual abuse of children by gangs of Pakistani men, concluded that the problem was ignored for years because local government officials were "lacking the confidence to tackle difficult issues for fear of being seen as racist or upsetting community cohesion."

The same pattern of misconduct is possibly even more true when it comes to the problem of Islamic extremism. With schools, it seems, successive governments, out of fear of being accused of insulting Britain's Muslim community, have largely ignored the problem of Muslim schools indoctrinating young children with extremist views.

In 2001, in Birmingham, an elected councillor, James Hutchings, said that state-funded Islamic schools would only encourage segregation. He argued that, "[school] inspections might not be as vigorous as they should be due to pressure from race relations interests."

The authorities' fears have been played on by a number of Islamist-run Muslim community groups. Among these was the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), which insisted in a 2007 report that Islamic faith schools were, in fact, a bulwark against "Islamophobia."

This Muslim Council of Britain report turns out to have been written by Tahir Alam, since identified as the ringleader of the "Trojan Horse" plot.

In 2004, a similar report, produced by the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia, stated that a failure to show "greater sensitivity to the concerns and needs of Muslims," especially in the education sector, would lead to increased levels of "Islamophobia" and greater hostility towards Muslims.

Manzoor Moghal again points to the government's policies of multiculturalism to explain the authorities' failure to challenge the growth of Islamist extremism in schools: "Instead of greater integration, this political creed has promoted separatism by emphasising differences and encouraging minority ethnic groups to cling to the customs of their homeland. In Birmingham, this has resulted in the rejection of western values by the governing bodies of too many Muslim-dominated schools."

Britain's multiculturalism doctrine was introduced with good intentions. Its failures, however, have outweighed its benefits. Increasingly, segregated religious communities receive state funds in order to remain separate. That extremists would gain a foothold seems inevitable.

It seems high time for the British government to re-think its financial support for religious communities, before extremist networks become more deeply embedded in other public institutions.

Some commentators have made the reasonable argument that the government should leave religion out of the state-school system entirely. It is clear that a public education system that fails to maintain the separation of church and state offers little, but risks a lot.

The Church of England and the Jewish community, however, would vigorously protest such a proposal. One third of state-funded schools in England, in fact "are legally designated with a religious character."

The most immediate solution, perhaps, is reform to school governance. The Trojan Horse plot demonstrated that extremist groups face few obstacles when appointing school governors, employing teachers with extremist links, or enforcing and teaching hard-line Islamic values.

By diluting the absolute power of school governors, local authorities and parents could serve to temper any hard-line ambitions. In addition, the Education Secretary could be given the discretionary power to veto particular school policies or preclude certain applicants from becoming governors or teachers. Organizations with extremist links could be barred from establishing schools or being involved in their management.

There may be no simple solutions, but Britain's multiculturalism trap is not a simple problem. Ultimately, there needs to be change.

• Follow Samuel Westrop on Twitter

Samuel Westrop

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5323/trojan-horse

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