Why Obama is Helping Iran Get the Bomb – on The Glazov Gang

Obama-RouhaniThis week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and the editor of Frontpage’s blog, The Point.

Daniel came on the show to discuss Why Obama is Helping Iran Get the Bomb,  unveiling the sinister calculations of a Radical-in-Chief (starts at 14:35 mark). The discussion occurred within a focus on The Real Meaning of ‘Allahu Akbar’.

Daniel also focused on Why Jihadists Lust for Their Own Death, How Islam is DifferentWhat’s Behind Obama’s Bullying of Israel, Measuring Obama vs. Putin, and much, much more.

Iran nuclear talks reportedly hit snag over lifting of sanctions as Obama makes appeal to Iran’s people

US Secretary of State John Kerry (L) meets with Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif (R) over Tehran's nuclear program in Lausanne, Switzerland, on March 20, 2015 (AFP Photo/Brian Snyder)

US Secretary of State John Kerry (L) meets with Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif (R) over Tehran’s nuclear program in Lausanne, Switzerland, on March 20, 2015 (AFP Photo/Brian Snyder)

Fox News, March 20, 2015:

A dispute over when international sanctions against Iran would be lifted following a potential nuclear agreement reportedly is the latest issue to bog down negotiations.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Iran’s negotiators say that sanctions must be lifted almost immediately after a deal is concluded. U.S. and European diplomats, for their part, hold that sanctions should only be lifted once Tehran accounts for its past nuclear activity and is confirmed to be using nuclear energy for peaceful means by the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog.

One European diplomat was quoted by the Journal as saying there was “no way” Western negotiators would budge from their position, which the diplomat said the Iranians considered a “deal-breaker. They don’t want it at all.”

Amid the dispute, officials from Iran and the U.S. reportedly said Friday that talks will resume next week.

According to the Journal, both sides believe that the U.S. and European Union can lift some of the sanctions each has unilaterally imposed on Iran’s energy and finance sectors. However, the issue of lifting sanctions imposed by the U.N. is more complex and according to negotiators, is likely to take years, not weeks or months, to accomplish.

For its part, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says that Iran has failed to turn over key documents about its nuclear program, and has also denied access to scientists and nuclear sites.

Both sides are working to meet a March 31 deadline to construct the framework of a permanent agreement. The final deadline for all the details to be worked out is June 30. On Thursday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and his Iranian counterpart, Foreign Minister Javad Zarif met face-to-face for the fourth straight day in Lausanne, Switzerland.

The Associated Press reported late Thursday that elements of a draft deal had been agreed that would commit Iran to a 40 percent cut in the number of machines it could use to make an atomic bomb. In return, the Iranians would get quick relief from some crippling economic sanctions and a partial lift of a U.N. embargo on conventional arms.

Officials told the AP that the tentative deal imposes at least a decade of new limits on the number of centrifuges Iran can operate to enrich uranium, a process that can lead to nuclear weapons-grade material. The sides are zeroing in on a cap of 6,000 centrifuges, officials said, down from the 6,500 they spoke of in recent weeks.

That’s also fewer than the 10,000 such machines Tehran now runs, yet substantially more than the 500 to 1,500 that Washington originally wanted as a ceiling. Only a year ago, U.S. officials floated 4,000 as a possible compromise.

It’s unclear how complete the draft is. Iran’s deeply buried underground enrichment plant remains a problem, officials said, with Washington demanding the facility be repurposed and Tehran insisting it be able to run hundreds of centrifuges there. Iran says it wants to use the machines for scientific research; the Americans fear they could be quickly retooled for enrichment.

A planned heavy water reactor will be re-engineered to produce much less plutonium than originally envisioned, relieving concerns that it could be an alternative pathway to a bomb. U.S. officials believe they can extend the time Tehran would need to produce a nuclear weapon to at least a year. Right now, Iran would require only two to three months to amass enough material to make a bomb.

President Barack Obama appealed directly to Iranian citizens in a message commemorating Nowruz, the Persian New Year.

“Our negotiations have made progress, but gaps remain,” Obama said Thursday in a video message posted online.

“If Iran’s leaders can agree to a reasonable deal, it can lead to a better path — the path of greater opportunities for the Iranian people,” he said.

The pressure in Congress on the administration over Iran remained intense, with the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee saying he would move ahead with legislation giving lawmakers a say over any nuclear deal. And 360 House Republicans and Democrats — more than enough to override any presidential veto — sent a letter to Obama saying if an agreement is reached, Congress will decide on easing sanctions it has imposed.

“Congress must be convinced that its terms foreclose any pathway to a bomb, and only then will Congress be able to consider permanent sanctions relief,” the lawmakers wrote.

Rep. Eliot Engel of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told administration officials at a hearing Thursday that Congress cannot be marginalized and “any attempts to sidestep Congress will be resisted on both sides of the aisle.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Also see:

Crises and “Root Crises”

300px-AlgerHissUNConference

Soviet GRU officer and Acting UN Secretary General Alger Hiss of the US State Department presiding over the opening of the United Nations in San Francisco, 1945. Next to him sits is his real boss, Soviet foreign minister Molotov. 

By Diana West, March 19, 2015:

There are crises, and there are what I am going to call “root crises.”

Crises are what we read about in the headlines: Obama’s latest post-Constitutional/dictatorial act; the most recent episode in population replacement; the next terrifying Supreme Court decision; the predictable disaster of Iranian nuclear negotiations, or continued American military presence in Afghanistan; the looming threat of the United Nations empowered by an “internationalist” US president.

“Root crises,” however, don’t make headlines, are never addressed, and are rarely articulated, especially by elected officials and others with lawful authority or even media platforms. For this reason, the crises that grow from root crises only multiply, and are never dispatched.

A recent, incipient exception — and ray of light — was Sen. Cotton’s website letteraddressed to the theocratic rulers of Iran. Cotton exposed the root crisis from which the crisis of Iranian nuclear negotiations arises  — the Constitutional crisis at home in which an administration (not the first) runs amok, unbounded by checks and balances.

Behold the flak Sen. Cotton drew. The wild hysterics on the Left and the Establishment Right (same difference) tells me that there is much righteous power to be drawn from bringing such root crises to light. But Cotton and his 46 GOP colleagues have to keep the light shining and more.

They need to realize that the unaddressed “root crisis” of broken checks and balances has a root crisis, too — many of them. If they dig deeper, it will become clear that Congress, a co-equal branch of government, itselt is in crisis. It has not just permitted, it has enabled the executive branch to engage in the Constitutionally illegal behaviors that the Senator’s letter warns of. Obama could not do this without help. Congress has flouted its Constutitional responsibility just as much as President Obama has by failing to to impeach him — a big root crisis, heretofore unaddressed. Continuing to ignore this, continuing to flinch at “political considerations,” will leave this systemic crisis to metasticize further.

Digging deeper still, we arrive at the time before this president — not the first — overturned, with Congress’ collusion, the system of checks and balances. Here, we find still another root crisis that has never been addressed: President Obama does not have clean identify documents. As I have written in many syndicated columns and posts before — to no particular avail, I suppose, but for the pride of the record — the “birth certificate” the White House website hosts and passes off as a copy of an official paper document has been demonstrated to be a fraud. That no public official in the entire country (and forget 99.9 percent of the media) — with the magnificent exception of Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio — has made this case to the conned, victimized American People is a root crisis, indeed.

It shows the cowardly soul — the most serious root crisis there is.

As a result of this and more, then, the unbounded and fraudulent Obama administration is, of course, reaching for more powers through the use of the “internationalist” United Nations, whether in dealings with Iran or, it seems, Israel. “Internationalist,” of course, is a euphemistic adjective that describes the movement toward what is euphemistically known as “world government.” This latter term is not used too much, possibly because it frightens people who grasp that denizens of such a “world government” are “subjects,” not “citizens,” ruled by the fiat of “transnational” elites.

This should not be a mystery. It is a fact and a root crisis that the euphemistically named “United Nations,” seat of the euphemistically named “Security Council,” was fostered into being in the final years of World War II and originally presided over by a decorated Soviet GRU officer/US State Department official named Alger Hiss.

These roots run deep.

***

After Ralph Peters expounds on Obama’s behavior towards Israel, which he explains is to be expected based on Obama’s roots, Claudia Rosett lays bare the fraud of the United Nations and echoes Diana West in her warning of the dangers of internationalism – “A path to global governance is very dangerous to all of us”

America is Losing the War Against Sunni Jihadists and Empowering The Shia Caliphate

isis-640x480Breitbartby DR. SEBASTIAN GORKA, March 13, 2015:

With its support of the Baghdad government and the wrong rebels in Syria, the US Administration is doing the unthinkable: strengthening the spread of Tehran’s control in the Middle East and at the same time also helping the Sunni extremists to grow in power.

The American strategy against Global Jihad is having the opposite effect of that intended. And even key government officials are beginning to openly admit the failure of our policies.

The Director of National Intelligence, retired General James Clapper, recently testified that the terrorist threat is worse than at any other time in history and Major General Michael Nagata, responsible for planning our response to the civil war in Syria, has stated that the Islamic State is now more dangerous than Al Qaeda.

Seemingly just to prove the broader point about the global appeal of Jihad against the “infidel,” ISIS has just accepted the African terrorist group Boko Haram’s pledge of allegiance, meaning that the Sunni Caliphate established last year in Mosul by Abu Bakr al Baghdadi now officially covers any territory that Boko Haram controls in Nigeria.

The spread of ISIS influence is not just about territorial control, it is about the staggering success of its international call to holy war, with an estimated 19,000 westerners having left their homes to wage jihad. The visual below, based upon a British think-tank’s unclassified research, shows just how international a recruitment wave this is, with almost every country on the map sending recruits to fight in just Syria alone.

image

Given all the evidence, even the most influential liberal commentators and pundits have admitted the failure of the Obama strategy against “Violent Extremism.” Writing recently in the New York Times, Thomas Friedman stated: “When you don’t call things by their real name, you always get in trouble. And this administration, so fearful of being accused of Islamophobia, is refusing to make any link to radical Islam” and added that as a nation “We’ve entered the theater of the absurd.” The left wing Atlantic magazine even dedicated 11,000 words to an article proving the Islamic roots of ISIS and the religious justification for its violence.

Fourteen years after the September 11th attacks and half way through President Obama’s second term, how can we explain a failure so egregious that even the pillars of the liberal left are finally prepared to call it out? The key mistakes upon which the current strategy is built are:

  • The White House’s belief in the ability to “degrade and destroy” ISIS through air power alone
  • The belief that Iran can be leveraged as an ally against ISIS
  • Gambling on Islamic rebels such as the Free Syrian Army as a way to remove President Assad of Syria, and mostly important:
  • The belief that ideology is irrelevant to the enemy we face and that this war can be won solely through military means or local proxies.

Each one of these premises is flawed and is undermining US national interests as well as the safety and stability of our regional allies.

Firstly, in the history of modern military air power, since the first hand grenade was thrown out of a biplane over a century ago, the number of insurgencies like ISIS that have been defeated by airstrikes alone is zero. Insurgents are defined by their capability to hold ground. This is what separates a rag-tag terrorist group from a real threat like the Islamic State. As a result, their control of territory by ground forces can only be countered by other ground forces contesting the same space and eventually destroying or pushing them out. This is not a call for the deployment of US troops, but for the recognition of the fact that only a ground response– for example, made up of Iraqi, Kurdish, Jordanian and Egyptian units– can defeat ISIS. (According to my sources even Ben Rhodes, the Deputy National Security Adviser, has admitted that US airstrikes are not working because we do not have the intelligence on the ground to know what to hit.) Any such response on the ground will not happen without US leadership and support, and in this President Sisi of Egypt will play the pivotal role even if the Obama Administration doesn’t like the former General. Without Egypt’s military might, the Islamic State will continue to grow and threaten the US even more than it already does.

By bringing Iran into our plans against ISIS, we are in fact strengthening a rival brand of Jihad. The war today in Syria and Iraq is not about the corruption of the former Maliki government in Baghdad or the human rights record of President Assad of Syria. It is about whose version of Islam will dominate the region. One only has to read or listen to Abu Bakr al Baghdadi’s sermon from the Grand Mosque Mosul in which he declared the Islamic State. The speech is about reestablishing the theocratic empire of Islam – the Caliphate – under Sunni control. ISIS even posted their real intent on social media:

Iran, on the other hand, also believes in the need to re-establish the Caliphate, but under its control as a Shia empire, and the wars in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, must be understood as the re-ignition of a 1,400 year old argument about who should control Islam. In fact, that is how the Sunni and Shia division of Islam occurred after the death of Mohammad, and those are the stakes for Tehran. The fact that the mullahs now control five regional capitals– Tehran, Baghdad, Beirut, Damascus, and now Sanaa– means that despite ISIS’s growth, the Shia extremists are winning. The White House’s belief that Tehran is an altruistic foe of Sunni jihadists like ISIS is driven by shortsightedness and a lack of understanding of the historic battle that is in play, and will simply strengthen the Shia proto-Caliphate, eventually even to include Tehran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons should the nascent deal the President is pushing come to fruition.

By contrast, in Syria, since 2011, the administration has been driven by its pathological hatred of Assad and the belief that, despite his enjoying the support of both Beijing and Moscow, Assad can be removed through the support of indigenous rebels such as the Free Syria Army. Speaking to the few true moderates that have organizational capability in theater, the sad truth is that we have chosen the wrong rebels. The more organized and loudest rebel groups are not the moderates but the true jihadists, some of whom have in fact formally allied themselves with ISIS. (This is not just a failure of the White House, but also the Republicans in Congress, especially Senator John McCain, who has the uncanny knack of supporting those who would kill us after they have killed all the Shia in the region).

Most disturbing of all is the Administrations willful dismissal of the real center of gravity in this war: the ideology of Global Jihadism. With its constant refrain that “upstream causes” such as poverty and lack of education are the real reason for terrorist violence, the White House displays a total ignorance of the groups we face today, from Al Qaeda to ISIS, from the Fort Hood shooter to the Tsarnaev brothers who killed and maimed hundreds at the Boston bombing.

As political correctness has been forced onto the practice of national security in general and counterterrorism specifically, we see absurd conclusions being drawn and fantastical policies being implemented. The recent international summit on “Combating Violent Extremism” hosted by the President and the White House assiduously preached repeatedly that religion has nothing to do with ISIS or Al Qaeda and concluded with this visual that all we need is more community outreach:

White House Summit

Of course, if poverty and lack of education were the drivers of terrorist violence, then half of the population of India would be terrorists. But they aren’t. Why? Because terrorist violence does not happen in a vacuum. It requires a spark, a narrative that acts as the justification to violence and the catalyst to mobilize people to do horrific acts against their fellow man. That ideology can be secular – for example, the communist terrorism of the Weather Underground led by Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers – or religious, such as ISIS. How else, for example, can one understand why the Islamic state would behead the 21 Coptic Christians whose murder they filmed on the shores of Libya, but instead burn alive the Jordanian pilot Lieutenant Mu’ath al-Kaseasbeh? These decisions were not random.

For the jihadists of ISIS, the Copts are kuffar, infidels, and as the Koran teaches, the infidel must be “smitten on the neck” (e.g. Koran Ch. 47 V. 4). However, Lt. Kaseasbeh was a Muslim, a Jordanian Sunni, who in taking arms up against the Caliphate made himself an “apostate” and as a result he had to be killed not as an infidel but as one who committed the sin of leaving Islam and therefore, he was to be treated as if he were in hell, i.e. burnt alive. Religion is therefore so important to this war that it even defines the way in which the terrorists will kill you should you be captured.

Today, the Global Jihad has two brands. It is a war of the “Sunni Coke” versus the “Shia Pepsi” which also targets the local minorities caught in the middle, most especially the ancient Christians of the region.(Incredibly, the Parliament of the European Union seems to understand the threat better than the White House based upon the resolution it just issued against ISIS.) The powers that be have allowed politics and ideology to distort and pervert the practice of national security to such an extent that, incredibly, we are not only helping the Sunni Jihadists, but also the Shia extremists of Iran. Whichever side wins the war for the crown of the Caliph is irrelevant, since once their immediate foe is vanquished we, the infidel West, will be their next target.

Sebastian Gorka Ph.D. is the Major General Matthew C. Horner Chair of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University. You can see his briefing from the Global Counterterrorism Summit on Why ISIS is Much More Dangerous than Al Qaeda here and follow him on Twitter at: @SebGorka.

Legal Experts: Future U.S. President Could Revoke Bad Nuke Deal With Iran

John Kerry / AP

John Kerry / AP

Washington Free Beacon, by Daniel Wiser, March, 12, 2015:

Legal experts are refuting a claim by Iran’s foreign minister that revoking a potential deal on the country’s nuclear program would violate international law, amid confusion Wednesday regarding whether or not the deal the State Department is negotiating will be in any way legally binding.

Javad Zarif, Tehran’s chief representative in the ongoing nuclear talks among the United States, Iran, and five other world powers, criticized on Tuesday an open letter sent by 47 Republican senators concerning the negotiations. While the lawmakers said in their missive that a future president or Congress could revoke or substantially alter a nuclear pact, Zarif responded that such changes would be illegal under international statutes.

“I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law,” he said, according to Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

However, the U.S. State Department asserted on Tuesday that a prospective nuclear agreement with Iran would be “nonbinding.” Secretary of State John Kerry also confirmed in congressional testimony on Wednesday that the Obama administration is “not negotiating a legally binding plan” but one from “executive to executive,” Politico reported. Kerry insisted such a deal would still “have a capacity of enforcement.”

Jeremy Rabkin, a law professor at George Mason University and an expert in international law and Constitutional history, said in an email that “nonbinding” by definition means that the United States “will not violate international law if we don’t adhere to its terms”—contrary to Zarif’s assertion.

“In other words we’re saying it is NOT an international obligation, just a statement of intent,” he said.

The legal nature of a potential nuclear agreement remains a matter of dispute.

The GOP senators wrote about the necessity of congressional oversight for “binding international agreements” in their letter. But on Wednesday, Kerry rejected that  characterization as “absolutely incorrect,” because the plan would not be legally binding.

The potential deal’s executive and nonbinding nature means Congress could not amend it, Kerry said.

Rabkin said the question of whether a U.S. president can institute a binding international agreement without congressional approval is disputed among legal scholars, but the State Department’s declaration that an Iran deal would be nonbinding places it in a different category.

“What Kerry seemed to say was not that his Iran deal would be in the same category but that it would not be legally binding in any sense, just a kind of memorandum of understanding,” Rabkin said. “I wonder whether he understood what he was saying. It was more or less conceding that what Cotton’s letter said was the administration’s own view—that the ‘agreement’ with Iran would not be legally binding, so (presumably) not something that could bind Obama’s successor.”

Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.), one of the lead authors of the GOP’s letter to Iran, expressed confusion on Wednesday about the State Department’s classification of a nuclear deal with Tehran.

“Important question: if deal with Iran isn’t legally binding, then what’s to keep Iran from breaking said deal and developing a bomb?” Cotton tweeted.

John Yoo, a law professor at University of California, Berkeley and a former Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration, wrote on Wednesday that Cotton and his fellow senators had it “exactly right” in their letter on matters of Constitutional law.

“The Cotton letter is right, because if President Obama strikes a nuclear deal with Iran using only [an executive agreement], he is only committing to refrain from exercising his executive power—i.e., by not attacking Iran or by lifting sanctions under power delegated by Congress,” Yoo wrote on National Review Online. “Not only could the next president terminate the agreement; Obama himself could terminate the deal.”

Additionally, Yoo said that under the Constitution’s Foreign Commerce Clause, Congress could still apply financial pressure on Iran regardless of an executive agreement.

“Obama’s executive agreement cannot prevent Congress from imposing mandatory, severe sanctions on Iran without the possibility of presidential waiver (my preferred solution for handling the Iranian nuclear crisis right now),” he said. “Obama can agree to allow Iran to keep a nuclear-processing capability; Congress can cut Iran out of the world trading and financial system.”

“As a matter of constitutional law, the Cotton letter should be no more controversial than a letter that simply enclosed a copy of the U.S. Constitution (without President Obama’s editing),” he added.

Also see:

***

Published on Mar 12, 2015 by EnGlobal News World

Schaden Freude Alert! Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei Rushed to Hospital in Critical Condition

Ayatollah KhamaneiNER, by Jerry Gordon, March 5, 2015:

Schaden Freude Alert! This is NOT Purim Shpiel.  Supreme Ruler Ayatollah Khamenei rished to hospital in critical condition. This may be evidence that sometimes Ha Shem does work in less than mysterious ways. The report of Ayatollah Khamenei’s ‘critical condition gives heft to the magnificent address by Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s address before a joint meeting of Congress. If confirmed it should bolster support for the real deal that Bibi spoke of- regime change in Tehran. That message should not be lost on President Obama, Secretary Kerry and the rest of the P5+1 intent on cutting a deal with this malevolent apocalyptic Mahdist regime fomenting chaos to awaken the moribund Twelth Imam in the holy well in the holy city of Qom, Iran. We trust that my cioreligiionists last night shook that grogger  (Purim noisemaker) (during the reading of Esther’s Megillah, but substituted Khamenei for Haman. Chag Purim Sameach.  Note  this Israel National News report on this ‘revoltin’ development, Report: Iran’s Supreme Leader Hospitalized in Critical Condition:

Purim-grogger

Just in time for Purim, the Jewish holiday celebrating the redemption of the Jewish people from plots of genocide in ancient Persia, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was reportedly hospitalized in critical condition on Wednesday.

According to Arab media reports cited by Israel Hayom, Khamenei was urgently brought to a hospital in Tehran after several of his bodily systems had already failed.

The reports add that the 76-year-old supreme leader of the Islamic regime has undergone surgery and remains in critical condition.

Recently it has been reported that he was suffering from prostate cancer which had spread to additional parts of his body, and due to his poor health condition he had largely ceased taking part in public events.

The hospitalization comes just days after Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu addressed Congress on Tuesday to warn of the existential threat to Israel and the world that Iran poses, urging America to avoid the deal being formed on Iran’s nuclear deal ahead of a March 31 deadline for talks.

Lending some credence to the reports is the fact that Khamenei’s official Twitter account hasn’t been updated since Netanyahu’s speech on Tuesday, when he wrote the “US is now facing a #dilemma. It should either stop unlimited services to #Israel or they’ll lose more face in the world.”

Report: Anti-ISIS Propaganda Head Tied to Muslim Brotherhood

AP748496654624-640x480Breitbart, by EDWIN MORA, 17 Feb 2015:

The Obama administration is revamping its efforts to combat Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL) propaganda. ISIS and its supporters produce “as many as 90,000 tweets and other social media responses every day,” reports The New York Times.

An empowered Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications, currently a small component of the U.S. State Department, will spearhead the new campaign to fight the ISIS propaganda machine.

Rashad Hussain, a Muslim American with close ties to the White House, will replace Alberto Fernandez, the center’s director, according to The Times.

Hussain, who has reportedly participated in events linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, currently serves as Obama’s special envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. He will take over when Fernandez retires in April.

“Hussain, a devout Muslim, has a history of participating in events connected with the Muslim Brotherhood,” reported Cal Thomas in an article published by Townhall.

Citing Egypt’s Rose El-Youssef magazine, The Investigative Project on Terrorism reported that Hussain “maintained close ties with people and groups that [the magazine] says comprise the Muslim Brotherhood network in America.”

Some critics describe Hussain as a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer. He is not a confirmed member of the group.

An added component called the Information Coordination Cell will be part of the newly revamped center.

It will be “staffed by intelligence and Pentagon analysts among others” and “will be responsible for the broader coordination functions.”

“Skeptics of the new [anti-propaganda] campaign voiced concerns that the program is an attempt by the White House to end a long-simmering turf war with the counterterrorism center’s director, Alberto Fernandez, and exercise more control over the kinds of messages that are produced and coordinated with domestic and international partners,” notes The Times.

“Other officials questioned whether even a newly empowered center at the State Department would be up to the task. Operating the center on a shoestring budget of about $5 million a year, Mr. Fernandez, a respected Middle East specialist and career Foreign Service officer, and his supporters have long complained that neither the State Department nor the White House fully supported or properly financed the center’s activities,” the article adds.

The Obama administration plans “to harness all the existing attempts at counter-messaging by much larger federal departments, including the Pentagon, Homeland Security and intelligence agencies,” explains The Times.

The Times added:

The center would also coordinate and amplify similar messaging by foreign allies and nongovernment agencies, as well as by prominent Muslim academics, community leaders and religious scholars who oppose the Islamic State, also called ISIS or ISIL, and who may have more credibility with ISIS’ target audience of young men and women than the American government.

About 80 people will staff the newly-empowered center.

“We’re getting beaten on volume, so the only way to compete is by aggregating, curating and amplifying existing content,” Richard A. Stengel, the under secretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs, said on Monday, NYT reports.

He admitted that anti-ISIS propaganda efforts by the Obama administration “could have been better coordinated,” adds the article.

In its arsenal, the U.S. government has “more than 350 State Department Twitter accounts, combining embassies, consulates, media hubs, bureaus and individuals, as well as similar accounts operated by the Pentagon, the Homeland Security Department and foreign allies,” points out The Times.

The report points out that the details of the campaign are still in the works, but Obama officials are expected to reveal “broad outlines” of the effort during a summit sponsored by the White House.

Starting on Tuesday, the White House is hosting a three-day summit on “Countering Violent Extremism” to “highlight domestic and international efforts to prevent violent extremists and their supporters from radicalizing, recruiting, or inspiring individuals or groups in the United States and abroad to commit acts of violence.”

The White House did not mention “Islamic extremism” in announcing the event. It has not fully revealed who will participate in the summit.

Hussain’s attendance to Muslim Brotherhood-linked events was defended by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross in an article that appeared in The Long War Journal.

Also see:

Rep. Gowdy Must Confront Clinton, Valerie Jarrett on Potential Roles in Benghazi

AP Photo/Jacquelyn-Martin

AP Photo/Jacquelyn-Martin

Breitbart, by Charles Ortel, Feb. 11, 2015:

After six years of a foreign policy strategy that observers have assessed as questionable at best, Americans and remaining foreign allies finally deserve an honest explanation of President Obama’s true aims across the Middle East. One person who should explain why the Obama Administration continually asserts the United States is making progress abroad despite so many appalling setbacks is senior aide Valerie Jarrett, whose influence shaping key policies is suggested in second-hand reports, but not yet adequately understood.

With Iran rising, and regimes falling throughout the region, now is the time to subject our President’s singular Senior Advisor to rigorous Congressional oversight, under oath, beginning with an appearance before Congress’s Select Committee on Benghazi.

Expose the real command structure inside the Obama Administration

Numerous accounts by high level U.S. government officials suggest that traditional reporting lines inside the Executive Branch are essentially irrelevant. Using Valerie Jarrett and other reliable associates, President Obama imposes his will everywhere that he can, outside effective scrutiny of political opponents, investigative journalists, and the American public.

Congressman Trey Gowdy, as head of Select Committee investigating the 2012 attack on the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya, has the assignment and the resources he needs to retrieve answers and hold accountable those responsible for the disastrous events that occurred starting September 11, 2012. To do his job properly, he needs to widen his focus beyond Libya, expose how the Obama White House actually makes its decisions, and determine which foreign powers are prime beneficiaries of Executive Branch actions.

It is not enough for the Select Committee simply to identify which officials may have slowed, or even stopped, rescue efforts for beleaguered U.S. government employees and/or contractors mired inside Libya, almost three years ago. Instead, Americans need to understand how deeply involved in Federal government are organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, and who has ultimate responsibility for vetting key government appointees and private contractors.

In addition, we deserve to know how deeply ties run between key Administration officials and the government of Iran, which seems to be the only clear beneficiary of Obama foreign policies. Furthermore, the American public should learn how widespread the practice has become wherein foreign interests purchase influence over government officials, theoretically independent scholars, and media watchdogs.

The truth actually matters

So far, Valerie Jarrett’s name does not figure on the published list of witnesses scheduled to appear before the Select Committee on Benghazi. Nor does Huma Abedin’s, a longtime aide to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Both of these individuals likely could help unravel the confusion concerning how America’s relations with Libya and with Egypt disintegrated so profoundly, opening up opportunities for Vladimir Putin to extend Russia’s influence in nations of key strategic significance.

Looking back before September 11, 2012, Congressman Gowdy should uncover who, other than Hillary Clinton (perhaps Ms. Jarrett?), must have approved the deeply troubling decision to let Huma Abedin simultaneously serve multiple masters– including the U.S. taxpayer, Hillary Clinton personally, Teneo Corporation and the Clinton Foundation. Given what happened after Mohamed Morsi took power by June 30, 2012, and given the continuing defiant support of the Obama Administration for the Muslim Brotherhood inside Egypt and the United States, the American public has every right to learn how someone with such suspect foreign connections became so involved in atypical ways influencing sensitive government initiatives.

Hillary Clinton apparently is eager to give her side of the story–though her attitude towards telling the truth is certainly flexible, as any fair-minded re-examination of her Bosnian landing under sniper fire reveals in retrospect.

Congressman Gowdy must summon the courage to examine closely the flows of official and intermediary communications and of money between and among interested parties in Libya and Egypt, not just in 2012, but from January 20, 2009 forward. Substantial U.S. government funds evidently disappeared under Hillary Clinton’s watch over the State Department–during the same period large donations flowed into Clinton Foundation while grants flowed to numerous recipients. Rather than shrugging off the confusing array of information, Congressman Gowdy needs to dive in and ferret out a comprehensible timeline that explains the motives and potential benefits derived by key interested parties.

When it comes to getting Obama Administration officials such as Valerie Jarrett to take Congressional oversight seriously, the record since January 2009 is certainly not encouraging–even now, on a potentially incendiary matter closer to home involving possible targeting of political opponents using the Internal Revenue Service, the Obama White House refuses to supply essential documents. So, teasing out the real timeline with regard to Libya, Egypt, and the Muslim Brotherhood will likely require aggressive tactics.

The difficult road ahead

Daunting as challenges seem across the Middle East, additional dangers threaten America in the potential splintering of Europe, the unrepentant rise of Putin’s Russia, and from China.

As Congressman Gowdy continues his important work, perhaps the governments of Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Egypt, and Israel can use their intelligence resources to help the American public understand exactly what the Obama Administration attempts as it continues redrawing the constellation of western interests across the Middle East.

Time is of the essence. Great nations with far more experienced leaders have floundered following misadventures outside their own borders. In the kind of Congressional oversight that has been sorely lacking until now, perhaps the United States can again find our best feet, and move these forward.

What Bobby Jindal Gets about Islam — and Most People Still Don’t

pic_giant_012415_SM_Muslims-France

We need a great deal more honesty about the religion, as the “no-go zone” debate reveals.

National Review, By Andrew C. McCarthy, Jan. 24, 2015

Footballs are deflating, the president is detached from reality, the Saudi king is deceased, and the sharia state next door, Yemen, is descending into bloody chaos. With mere anarchy loosed upon the world, it would be easy to miss the fact that, in England this week, Bobby Jindal gave as important and compelling a speech as has been delivered in years about America — our leadership role on the world stage, our preservation as a beacon of liberty.

In the birthplace of the Magna Carta, it has nonetheless become legally risky to speak with candor (even when quoting Churchill). Yet Louisiana’s Republican governor became that rarest of modern Anglo or American statesmen. Bobby Jindal told the truth about Islam, specifically about its large radical subset that attacks the West by violent jihad from without and sharia-supremacist subversion from within.

With Western Europe still reeling from the jihadist mass-murders in Paris at Charlie Hebdo magazine and the Hyper Kacher Jewish market, Governor Jindal outlined a bold, Reaganesque vision of American foreign policy guided by three imperatives — freedom, security, and truth. It is on the last one, truth, that our capacity to ensure freedom and security hinges. “You cannot remedy a problem,” Jindal explained, “if you will not name it and define it.”

And so he did: Our immediate security problem today “is ISIS and all forms of radical Islam.” That is, the challenge is not limited to violent jihadists who commit barbaric atrocities. Jindal elaborated: “In the West, non-assimilationist Muslims establish enclaves and carry out as much of sharia law as they can without regard for the laws of the democratic countries which provided them a new home.”

The campaign to implement and spread sharia is antithetical to Western liberty. Freedom, Jindal said, means “the ability to conduct commerce both inside and outside your borders; it means the right to speak freely, to publish any cartoons you want. It means the right to worship freely. It means the right to self-determination.” By contrast, “radical Islamists do not believe in freedom or common decency, nor are they willing to accommodate them in any way and anywhere.” Moreover, the version of sharia law to which they adhere

is not just different than our law, it’s not just a cultural difference, it is oppression and it is wrong. It subjugates women and treats them as property, and it is antithetical to valuing all of human life equally. It is the very definition of oppression. We must stop pretending otherwise.

It cannot credibly be denied that this is so, as I have documented — using not only notorious examples of how sharia is applied in countries like Saudi Arabia (where it is the law of the land), but also Reliance of the Traveller, a classic sharia manual certified as accurate by prominent Islamic scholars, including at both al-AzharUniversity (the seat of Sunni jurisprudence since the tenth century) and at the International Institute of Islamic Thought (an influential Muslim Brotherhood think tank).

Still, Governor Jindal has been pilloried since his courageous speech by tendentious critics across the spectrum, from the usual Islamist grievance chorus to Fox News commentators and British prime minister David Cameron.

Why? Because he dared notice what ought to be an inarguable fact: The non-assimilationist Muslim campaign has resulted in the rise throughout Western Europe of what Jindal described as “unofficial” “so-called” “no-go zones.”

Jindal was clearly right about this. His timing, however, was wrong: He had the misfortune to dilate on “no-go zones” at the same time that Steven Emerson, the usually astute terrorism analyst, made a no-go gaffe. Steve erroneously claimed that the entire British city of Birmingham is “totally Muslim” and has become a “no-go zone” where “non-Muslims simply don’t go in.”

Emerson has since apologized profusely. The damage, however, was done. Fox News is evidently so embarrassed at having been the forum for his faux pas (and at having been threatened with legal action by the city of Paris, which was the main target of Steve’s commentary), that the network is over-correcting. This helps stoke the Islamist meme that no-go zones are a hysterical figment of the “Islamophobic” imagination.

That is absurd, but follows naturally from two things: a common misunderstanding about sharia, and a misrepresentation that describing the incontestable fact thatsharia is being applied de facto in Europe is the same as falsely claiming that sharia is now the de jure writ of Europe.

Dreamy Islamophiles like Mr. Cameron and many of his like-minded progressives in bipartisan Beltway circles have a sputtering snit anytime a commentator associates Islam with anything other than “peace.” Consequently, the doctrine of Islam (which actually means submission) remains taboo and poorly understood in the West. One major misconception is that Islamists (i.e., Islamic supremacists or Muslims who want sharia implemented) demand that all non-Muslims convert to Islam. A no-go zone is thus incorrectly assumed by many to be a place that Muslims forbid non-Muslims to enter.

In reality, sharia explicitly invites the presence of non-Muslims provided that they submit to the authority of Islamic rule. Indeed historically, as I related in The Grand Jihad, my book about the Muslim Brotherhood and its Islamist ideology, because sharia calls on these submissive non-Muslims (dhimmis) to pay a poll tax (jizya), their continued presence was of economic importance in lands conquered by Islamic rulers.

It is therefore easy for Islamists and their apologists to knock down their strawman depiction of no-go zones as places where non-Muslims are not allowed. That is not what no-go zones are — neither as they exist in fact nor as they are contemplated by sharia. The point of imposing sharia — the reason it is the necessary precondition for building an Islamic society — is to make Islam the dominant social system, not the exclusive faith. The idea is that once sharia’s systematic discrimination against non-Muslims is in place, non-Muslims will see the good sense of becoming Muslims. Over time, every one will convert “without coercion.” The game is to set up an extortionate incentive for conversion while maintaining the smiley-face assurance that no one is being forced to convert at the point of a sword.

So radical Muslims will be welcoming to any ordinary non-Muslims who are willing to defer to their mores. What they are hostile to are officials of the host state: police, firefighters, building inspectors, emergency medical personnel, and anything associated with the armed forces. That is because the presence of those forces symbolizes the authority — the non-submission — of the state.

Notice, however, that no sensible person is saying that state authorities are prohibited from entering no-go zones as a matter of law. The point is that they are severely discouraged from entering as a matter of fact — and the degree of discouragement varies directly with the density of the Muslim population and its radical component. Ditto for non-Muslim lay people: It is not that they are not permitted to enter these enclaves; it is that they avoid entering because doing so is dangerous if they are flaunting Western modes of dress and conduct.

There is a reason that Governor Jindal qualified his invocation of the term no-go zones, modifying it with “so-called” and noting that the term is used “unofficially.” His speech was about reality, particularly where it stressed the need for truthfulness in forming policy. If our premise is reality, it is not no-go zones that are imaginary; it is the suggestion that no-go zones do not exist simply because non-Muslim entry is not literally prohibited by law. As the Gatestone Institute’s Soeren Kern painstakingly demonstrates, “Muslim no-go zones are a well-known fact of life in many parts of Europe.” It has been amply acknowledged not only in press reports and academicanalyses but by governments that must deal with them.

Have a look, for example, at the French government’s official listing of 750 Zones Urbaines Sensibiles­ — “sensitive urban zones.” France’s “ZUS” designation is significant. As the estimable scholar Daniel Pipes recounted in a column at NRO this week, when he coined the term “no-go zone” in 2006 it was intended as “a non-euphemistic equivalent” of ZUS. If that is how the term “no-go zone” is understood — as an enclave deferential to Islamic sensibilities rather than exclusionary of non-Muslims — the contention that no-go zones do not exist is plainly frivolous. This is so even if, as Pipes maintains, the term “no-go zone” itself was an overstatement. The term “semi-autonomous sectors,” he says, would more accurately convey the historical anomaly the West has created: “a majority population [that] accepts the customs and even the criminality or a poorer and weaker community,” and in a manner that involves far more than control over physical territory.

Nevertheless, the problem with all this semantic nattering is its intimation that we can only infer the existence of no-go zones, and of the Islamist subversion they signal, by drawing inferences from what we see happening on the ground.

Nonsense. The world’s most influential Islamic supremacists have told us in no uncertain terms that they see Muslim immigration in the West as part of a conquest strategy.

As I recounted in The Grand Jihad, the strategy is often referred to as “voluntary apartheid.” One of its leading advocates is Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood icon who is probably the world’s most revered sharia jurist. Sheikh Qaradawi, who vows that Islam will conquer America and Europe, and who has beencrystal clear on the incompatibility of sharia and Western democracy, elaborates:

Were we to convince Western leaders and decision-makers of our right to live according to our faith — ideologically, legislatively, and ethically — without imposing our views or inflicting harm upon them, we would have traversed an immense barrier in our quest for an Islamic state.

Translation: To establish Islamic domination in the West, we do not need to resort to terrorism or to force non-Muslims to convert; we need merely a recognized right to resist assimilation, to regard sharia as superseding Western law and custom when the two conflict, as they do in fundamental ways.

This is precisely why the Organization of Islamic Cooperation — the bloc of 56 Muslim countries (plus the Palestinian Authority) — warned in a 2010 report on“Islamophobia” that “Muslims should not be marginalized or attempted to be assimilated, but should be accommodated.” (Here, at p. 30.) It is why Recep TayyipErdogan, the Islamist president of Turkey who has systematically dismantled that country’s secular, pro-Western system, pronounces that pressuring Muslims to assimilate “is a crime against humanity.”

At Oxford, Bobby Jindal bluntly asserted that the ideology of our enemy, radical Islam,

holds the view that it is wrong to expect assimilation, that assimilation is colonialist, assimilation is backward, and assimilation is in fact evidence of cultural bigotry and insensitivity. They think it is wrong to expect that people who chose to immigrate to your country should be expected to endorse and abide by your laws. They think it is unenlightened, discriminatory, and even racist to expect immigrants to endorse and assimilate into the culture in their new country. This is complete rubbish.

That is the truth. The United States will not get national-security policy right, nor reestablish our credentials as leader of the free world, until we accept that truth. Accept it and resolve, as Governor Jindal has resolved, to tell it boldly.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

Emerson with Judge Pirro: No-Go Islamic Zones and Western Self-Denial

 

IPT, by Steven Emerson
Interview on Fox News
January 11, 2015

Jeanine Pirro: Developing tonight, new reports that terrorist sleeper cells may have been activated in France. This as we’re learning new details about hundreds of no-go zones across France and other countries that are off limits to non-Muslims. Steve Emerson, founder of the Investigative Project joins us. Alright Steve, my last guest told us some chilling details about these no-go zones. What more can you tell us about these zones, Steve?

Steve Emerson: Well these no-go zones exist not only in France, but they exist throughout Europe. They’re sort of amorphous, they’re not contiguous necessarily, but they’re sort of safe havens and they’re places where the governments like France, Britain, Sweden, Germany don’t exercise any sovereignty. So you basically have zones where Shariah courts were set up, where Muslim density is very intense, where the police don’t go in, and where it’s basically a separate country almost, a country within a country.

Pirro: You know what it sounds like to me, Steve? It sounds like a caliphate within a particular country.

Emerson: It certainly does sound like that. It’s almost the prescription that they’re asking Israel to do, which is to set up a separate state within their own state, except they’re not recognizing it. And they’re not dealing with it because they don’t want to; I got into a tweet fight with the French ambassador who denied that there are any such things as no-go zones, except on the French official website it says there are and it actually has a map of them…. [A]nd in Britain, it’s not just no-go zones, there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in. And parts of London, there are actually Muslim religious police that actually beat and actually wound seriously anyone who doesn’t dress according to Muslim, religious Muslim attire. So there’s a situation that Western Europe is not dealing with. And in this country, you know, we have this, you know this selective orientation toward what is radical Islam. The president doesn’t [even] say the [words, “radical Islam.”] We include Turkey as…our ally, despite the fact that it supports Hamas, it provides safe haven to the leaders of Hamas that coordinate attacks on Israel. Europe just lifted the sanctions on Hamas. So when Europe says or France says, ‘We’re engaged in a war against radical Islam,’ they don’t include Hamas, they don’t include Hizballah.

Pirro: OK tell me, Steve, is there any way to get these no-go zones back? In other words, does France want it back? Does Belgium want it back? Does Germany want these zones back? Because what’s happening is this is metastasizing into a simple takeover. I think even you said Europe is over. What did you say, Steve?

Emerson: I said the other day, Europe is finished because if you extrapolate the number of Muslims [now into the future, you will get Muslim dominated countries] and I’m not saying that all Muslims are terrorists, far from it.

Pirro: Of course not.

Emerson: Because the problem is that the leadership of the Muslim communities in Europe deliberately don’t want to integrate. And so they establish these zones which refuse to integrate and use them as leverage against the host country as political and military leverage. So will these countries take it back? I don’t see it happening at this point. You see [the] reaction by the population, Judge. But I don’t see the country elites taking it [the Muslim no-go zones] back. And that’s really unfortunate, because it fosters the whole perpetuation of radical Islamic generations from here to come.

Pirro: Alright, I just have a few seconds left, Steve. Tell us very quickly about these women — you know, we hear about this woman, [Hayat] Boumeddiene, as well as some of the other female terrorists, I mean there are a lot of them in France, I understand.

Emerson: Yeah, well listen, there are many of them, not many, I can’t give you the specific number. But they’ve trained, first of all they’ve carried out terrorist attacks in the Middle East for sure. Hizballah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad. ISIS even has women trained [as] Islamic female terrorists, and Europe also [has]; we’ve seen now in Britain where [some Muslim] women [trained as terrorists] wear burkas to hide their identities, and in fact in certain airports, believe it or not, they don’t require the burkas to be removed to identify them to see who they are in their passport controllers.

Pirro: Exactly. Gotta wrap. Great point. I’ve seen it at airports myself.

Update 1/11/15 – 

I have clearly made a terrible error for which I am deeply sorry. My comments about Birmingham were totally in error. And I am issuing this apology and correction for having made this comment about the beautiful city of Birmingham. I do not intend to justify or mitigate my mistake by stating that I had relied on other sources because I should have been much more careful. There was no excuse for making this mistake and I owe an apology to every resident of Birmingham.  I am not going to make any excuses. I made an inexcusable error. And I am obligated to openly acknowledge that mistake.  I wish to apologize for all residents of that great city of Birmingham.

Steve Emerson

PS. I am making  donation to Birmingham Children’s Hospital.

Qatar: A Change of Heart? Or merely rearranging the Camels?

qatar_awareness_campaign_logoBy William Michael:

An Update from the Qatar Awareness Campaign

Several recent news reports point to the possibility that Qatar, the host nation of the Muslim Brotherhood, may be genuine in their attempt to reconcile with their Arab neighbors.  After expelling the Qataris and isolating them diplomatically, the United Arab Emirate, Saudi Arabia, and even Egypt appear to have reached an accord with Doha.  The Nazi-rooted Muslim Brotherhood was long ago banished from Saudi Arabia (in the late 1920s), and Egypt has violently suppressed them many times, notably after the assassination of Sadat.  Yet the daily report out of the Middle East suggests that KSA, UAE, and Egypt may really welcome Doha back into the family.

Consider:

  • Yesterday, it was reported that Qatar pledged to stop funding Hamas – truly remarkable, if true.
  • A few months ago, they expelled prominent members of the Muslim Brotherhood.
  • An Interpol arrest warrant has been issued for Yusuf al-Qaradawi (the Muslim Brotherhood’s “spiritual leader”), and he will no longer broadcasting on Al Jazeera (if reports are to be believed).

It is possible that the month-long Qatar Awareness Campaign, which issued an open letter to nearly 30 companies, universities, individuals, and politicians who benefited financially from a relationship with terror-sponsoring Qatar, had something to do with this apparent change of heart.  The campaign identified Qatar as the primary sponsor of Islamic terror, with connections across the Middle East and North Africa to groups such as Hamas, ISIS, and Boko Haram.

But, there is another explanation for this apparent change of heart which, given Qatar’s two-faced nature, may be more realistic.

The MB could simply be shifting their bases of operation, leaving their financial hub, Qatar, alone (for the moment), thus providing their wealthy benefactor with the good press to alleviate them of the international pressure. For over the past four months, the world press had suddenly taken notice of the corrupt Gulf terror state, and its causing them trouble. FC Barcelona, for example, dropped their sponsorship deal Qatar Foundation over Qatar’s financing of Hamas.

The evidence for this “camel rearranging” is as follows:

  • Turkey, a close ally of Qatar and Muslim Brotherhood proxy themselves, welcomed the expelled Muslim Brothers from Qatar.
  • Qatar and Turkey recently reaffirmed their mutual support for “oppressed peoples” – i.e., Islamists in secularly governed countries, and Hamas in Gaza.
  • Other MB expelled from Qatar have gone to Libya, where the UAE/Egypt are in a proxy war with Qatar.
  • Hamas has been removed from the EU list of terrorist groups, providing more flexibility to terrorists in Palestine.
  • The White House (Obama) tacitly threatened to sanction Israel, and remains extremely hostile to Netanyahu.
  • Qatar’s reconciliation with their Gulf neighbors appears to be directly related to lower oil prices, which have crippled Russia’s economy and hurt Iran (Russia and Iran being no friends of Saudi Arabia).  This also directly affects Syria, a Russian and Iranian client state that is under siege by Qatar, the Muslim Brotherhood, elements in Saudi Arabia, and the Obama administration.
  • ISIS is preparing to attack Israel.

Another development to take into account is the increasingly sharp language of the conservative press aimed at Obama and the Islamists.  We may finally be reaching a point where, sooner or later, the mainstream press is going to have to face up to the possibility that Obama is not who he says he is, but in fact an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Consider, the cop killer in NYC worked for Islamic Society of North America, and the president of ISNA is a close Obama advisor, including to DHS and the National Security Council.  The truth is getting harder to ignore.  As many people who have spent the time investigating Obama’s roots and connections have determined, the real threat to world peace is not in fact Qatar, but the Obama administration.

Now is truly the time to make the case that the administration is the North American branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, the parent organization of Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Taliban, and Hamas.  It must be done for posterity, before it is too late!

Let the chips fall where they may – the future belongs to the brave.

Iran Announces Missiles Equipped with Multiple Warheads

Iranian Fateh-110 series Missiles with alleged  Multiple warhead capabilties  Source FARS news agency 3-5-14

Iranian Fateh-110 series Missiles with alleged Multiple warhead capabilties Source FARS news agency 3-5-14

By Jerry Gordon:

Iran’s Revolutionary guard unveiled a new class of missiles which it alleges has multiple  warhead capabilities.  In our March NER article, has Iran Developed Nuclear Weapons in North Korea? , We reported sources suggesting that   the Islamic regime , in cooperation with North Korea,  were testing a nuclear equipped MIRV warhead and that Iran might have  the capability of fitting one on a ballistic missile  within 4 to 6 months.

If this announcement today by Iran’s FARS agency is confirmed, it will demonstrate that the P5+1 negotiators were blindsided by Iranian demands to exclude ballistic missile development.  As Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman said in a US Senate Foreign Relations hearings in early February 2014 before Chairman Sen. Robert Menendez: “It is true that in these first six months we’ve not shut down all of their production of any ballistic missile that could have anything to do with delivery of a nuclear weapon.”  Jennifer Rubin in her Washington Post blog, “Right Turn” cited Sen. Menendez in his speech before AIPAC’s Annual Policy Conference yesterday, saying:

Menendez repeated a warning he recently gave on the Senate floor that it will “be too late” to enact sanctions six months from now. That reality hangs over AIPAC, the Iran and P5+1 talks, and Congress: Iran by achieving partial relaxation of sanctions and by biding time to continue missile development and advanced centrifuge research is quickly becoming the nuclear-capable state Menendez vows to prevent.

What will the Obama West Wing do in the face of this challenge by the Iranian regime pursuing its diplomatic track?  WE don’t pretend to know. However, both sponsors of the Nuclear Weapons Free Iran Act, S. 1881, Sens. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Sen. Menendez (D-NJ) do. That is to overwhelm Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and move on passing the standby sanctions authority.  Even that may be “too late” given today’s announcement. Moreover, with the Israel Navy interception of rockets bound for Gaza in the Red Sea today, Iran is pursuing all means possible to create a nuclear equipped ICBM umbrella demonstrating its hegemony in the global Islamic terrorist war against Israel, the US, Middle East allies and the West.

Those dangers were highlighted in Israeli PM Netanyahu’s speech at the AIPAC Conference yesterday when he said:

Iran says it only wants a peaceful nuclear program. So why is it building a heavy water reactor, which has no purpose in a peaceful nuclear program? Iran says it has nothing to hide. So why does it ban inspectors from its secret military sites? Why doesn’t it divulge its military nuclear secret — the secrets of its military nuclear activities? They absolutely refuse to say a word about that. Iran says it’s not building nuclear weapons. So why does it continue to build ICBMs, intercontinental ballistic missiles, whose only purpose is to carry nuclear warheads?

See, unlike Scud missiles, that are limited to a range of a few hundred miles,ICBMs can cross vast oceans. And they can strike, right now or very soon, the eastern seaboard of the United States — Washington — and very soon after that, everywhere else in the United States, up to L.A.

And the important point to make is this: Iran’s missiles can already reach Israel, so those ICBMs that they’re building, they’re not intended for us. You remember that beer commercial, “this Bud’s for you”? Well, when you see Iran building ICBMs, just remember, America, that Scud’s for you.

Read more at New English Review

Also see:

Video: Christopher Holton on Civilization Jihad, the Global Islamic Insurgency and Shariah Compliant Finance

moa1Terror Trends Bulletin, Oct. 17, 2012, by Christopher Holton:

This information makes up the introductory portion of the briefing that I have been delivering around the country for the past 3 years. It is important given the mounting evidence of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration in the West, and the US in particular.

On 22 May 2007, the Pew Research Center, certainly not a “conservative” organization, published a report on a survey that they conducted of Muslims in America. The name of that report was “Muslims in America: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream.”

Pew rolled it out as a celebration of Muslims in America. The media jumped on the bandwagon and the report was received with delight.

But there are aspects of the report which deserve more scrutiny and which Pew and the media essentially ignored in their spin during the release.

First a few background highlights:

• Pew reported that there were 2.35 million Muslims in America, including 1.4 million over the age of 18 (the target group of the survey).

This is important because the Muslim Brotherhood organizations, such as CAIR and ISNA, frequently claim that there are 5-6 million Muslims in America. President Obama parroted the bogus 5-6 million figure from the Muslim Brotherhood in his 2009 Cairo speech.

• 30% of the 1.4 million (420,000) were said to be between 18 and 29.

This is important because this is the demographic most likely to be involved in jihadist activity.

Most importantly, there were two particularly relevant questions that were buried deep in the Pew survey that Pew chose not to address or highlight in its release and rollout of the report:

Relevant Question Number 1: Can Suicide Bombing of Civilian Targets to Defend Islam be Justified?

A: Often/Sometimes: 8%

A: Rarely: 5%

A: Don’t Know/Refuse to Answer: 9%

A: Never: 78%

 In other words, AT LEAST 13% of American Muslims believed that suicide bombings of civilian targets was justified at least in some circumstances.

 182,000 Muslims in America over the age of 18 believed that Islamikaze bombings of civilian targets was justified at least in some circumstances.

Here is another important point: This same question was asked of Muslims under the age of 30 (the age group most associated with jihadist activity):

A: Often/Sometimes: 15%

A: Rarely: 11%

A: Don’t know/refuse to answer: 5%?

A: Never: 69%

 26% or 109,200 Muslims in America between 18 and 29 believed that Islamikaze bombings of civilian targets was justified at least in some circumstances.

Relevant Question Number 2: What is your view of Al Qaeda?

A: Favorable: 5%

A: Somewhat Unfavorable: 10%

A: Don’t Know/Refuse to Answer: 27%

A: Very Unfavorable: 58%

Same questions to Muslims under 30:

A: Favorable: 7%

A: Somewhat Unfavorable: 16%

A: Don’t Know/Refuse to Answer: 19%

A: Very Unfavorable: 58%

 70,000 Muslims in America admitted to having a favorable view of Al Qaeda.

 29,400 Muslims in America between the ages of 18 and 29 admitted to having a favorable view of Al Qaeda.

It is particularly noteworthy that younger Muslims in America appear to be more predisposed to violent Jihad than older Muslims based upon the answers to these two questions.

Note that this survey was conducted of Muslims in America, not Muslims in Benghazi, Ramadi, Fallujah, Gaza, Cairo, Sana’a, Tehran, Kandahar, or Islamabad. The tens of thousands of Muslims that harbor these views all live in America. These numbers are staggering and frightening.

Civilizational Jihad and Global Islamic Insurgency with Christopher Holton, Published on Dec 26, 2013 by Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors:

 

“… new reality makes identifying and understanding the Islamic doctrinal basis of our Jihadist enemies all the more important, yet with each passing attack, we seem to be getting further and further away from doing so.”

Christopher Holton of the Center for Security Policy discussed what America faces in addition to the threat of violent jihad another, an even more toxic danger — a stealthy and pre-violent form of warfare aimed at destroying our constitutional form of democratic government and free society. The Muslim Brotherhood is the prime mover behind this seditious campaign, which it calls “civilization jihad.”

Civilizational Jihad is succeeding through government, finance, military institutions…and though our schools.

Christopher Holton is Vice-President of Outreach at the Center for Security Policy. He directs the Center’s Divest Terror Initiative and Shariah Risk Due Diligence Program. He has been involved in legislation in twenty states to divest taxpayer supported pension systems from foreign companies that do business with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic Republic of Sudan, and the Syrian Arab Republic. Since 2008, Chris has been the editor-in-chief of the Shariah Finance Watch Blog. In 2005, he was a co-author of War Footing, published by the US Naval Institute Press. Holton’s work has also been published by National Review, Human Events, The American Thinker, Family Security Matters, Big Peace, World Tribune, World Net Daily, NewsMax, and thehayride.com. Before joining the Center, Chris was President of Blanchard and Company, a two hundred million dollar per year investment firm, and editor-in-chief of the Blanchard Economic Research Unit. Christopher blogs at TerrorTrendsBulletin.com.

 

And this is an excellent presentation on Shariah Compliant Finance with a long Q&A beginning about 50 min. in:

 

Here is a transcript of a similar presentation given in 2012.

 

Vladimir Putin Vs. President Barack Obama

20120619_putin_obama_2012by ALAN KORNMAN:

Vladimir Putin is projecting Russian power across the world stage exactly as the former KGB operative was trained to do.  The Cold War never ended, just the tactics and technology have changed as we roll into 2014 and beyond.

The United States military led by President Ronald Reagan won round 1 of the U.S. / Russian cold war.  Today, Communist Russian President Vladimir Putin has recently had six significant victories every American must be aware of.

This is the sad story of the KGB Operative chess player versus our ill equipped community organizer — and the chickens are coming home to roost.

Communist Russia’s Objective

The Russians are expanding their presence in the high seas and upgrading their naval nuclear capabilities with the objective of controlling naval bases outside of their shorelines.  Russia currently has naval bases in the Ukrainian port of Sevastopal in the Black Sea.  According to Russia Today, June 26, 2013, the Syrian port of Tartus in the Mediterranean Sea is still an active Russian naval facility.  There are recent intelligence reports the Russians have vacated the Port of Tartus but is by no means a permanent situation.

“The future overseas naval bases, like the one is Sevastopal, are not being referred to as “naval bases” by Russian officials, but by other terms. Moscow is calling them “supply points” or “bases for naval logistics” to make them sound far less threatening. The nomenclature does not really matter. The functions of these naval facilities, however, are for Putin’s strategic military purposes.

Vladimir Putin is shifting the Russian naval fleet into a nuclear capable offensive attack force which should be fully operational by 2020.  The commander of the Strategic Rocket Forces of the Russian Federation, Colonel-General Karakayev, said that Russia’s inter-continental ballistic missiles would become “invisible” in the near future.  ‘Invisible’ means submarines with nuclear warhead delivery capabilities.

Russian President Putin’s Victories 

#1 Egypt 

President Obama made a historical tactical error ordering the ouster of Hosni Mubarak in favor of the International terrorist group, The Muslim Brotherhood, and its leader Mohammad Morsi as ordered by Hillary Clinton.

On October 6, 1981,  Gamaa al-Islamiyya, a franchise of The Muslim Brotherhood, assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.  Hosni Mubarak, a declared and proven friend of America went after The Muslim Brotherhood terrorists with an iron fist.

President Obama backed the same Muslim Brotherhood terrorists who murdered Anwar Sadat back in 1981. Putin has not forgotten that Anwar Sadat was the Egyptian leader who canceled the Soviet’s Navy right to use Egyptian ports over 50 years ago in favor of the USA.

As a result of President Obama’s foreign policy blunders in Egypt,  the Russian Navy will likely again have a ‘supply station’ in Egypt’s warm water ports.  The current Egyptian government is very public against President Obama and running to the side of Vladimir Putin.

#2 Syria 

The President of Syria, Bashar Assad, had been an important partner of the United States for decades.  President Obama’s sparked a Sunni / Shia Muslim civil war and publicly called for Bashar Assad to step down or face the consequences if he overstepped his famous red line.

Bashar Assad dismissed Mr. Obama’s empty threats and chose to fight Al-Qaeda, Ansar al-Shariah, and the Muslim Brotherhood rebels who had Obama’s support.

President Obama laid down the red line saying American forces will attack Assad if he used chemical weapons.  Chemical weapons were used, Mr. Obama starts the countdown to attack and embroiling the US into another Middle East Conflict.  President Obama put himself into a position where his words of war caught up with him and he desperately needed a way out and not have to bomb Damascus.

In comes KGB statecraft expert Vladimir Putin to save our community organizer President Obama at his weakest moment.  Putin packaged a deal to defuse the situation and broker a chemical weapon free zone deal between the United States and Syria.  Mr. Obama hands Putin a unprecedented public relations victory as peacemaker.    Putin’s regional influence grows as  President Obama again shames America with another failure of world diplomacy that may well take decades to recover from, if ever.

The view from 30,000 feet is that Putin established Russia’s foreign policy influence on the world stage for the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union.  President Obama has woken up a hungry Russian sleeping bear that is feeding on his failures and missteps.  Analysts have described this situation as Vladimir Putin playing chess while Mr. Obama plays checkers.

Read more: Family Security Matters 

 

What Will It Take?

oBy David Solway:

Let me begin with a categorical statement that, given current events and recent political history, can be easily defended: Barack Hussein Obama is a willful, indoctrinated child of the Left with strong Islamic sympathies who is not fit to govern. Indeed, he would not be fit to govern Lower Slobovia [1], let alone the United States of America. Obama is a historic disaster of the first magnitude and, if not restrained, he will see to the irrevocable decline of the country which foolishly elected him, leaving the world on the brink of a conflict — or in the midst of one — whose repercussions cannot be underestimated.

Accompanying the undeniable havoc and damage that Obama is wreaking on his country and equally on its allies — Honduras, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Poland, Czech Republic, Israel, and possibly Taiwan — is the sense of helplessness that overcomes one when writing or speaking about a rogue president and his destructive administration. I feel this personally, having done my utmost in books, articles and lectures, from 2008 to the present, to warn whomever might read or listen that Obama represented a greater threat to the U.S. and the oddly named “free world” than any of our most dedicated and belligerent enemies. Even prior to his nomination as the Democratic candidate for the presidency, my distrust of this man was proprioceptive. And after his Missouri address, I wondered why anyone would want to “fundamentally transform” a country which, for all its flaws, perched atop the pinnacle of success in comparison to any other country.

Everything Obama has done since then has only served to confirm what was originally a deep suspicion and soon grew to become a complete certainty. Dozens of meticulously researched books have been published to the same effect. And yet very few people seemed to be paying attention. No less disconcerting, those who argue that to criticize Obama is a sign of deep-dyed racism are, of course, relying on slander and misappropriation of language to protect their chosen standard bearer and his Marxist/progressivist/utopian project.

What will it take to convince the ersatz aristocracy of frivolous intellectuals and brainless celebrities, partisan journalists, editors and academics, and an indifferent or deluded laity that they are heading for a crisis that will change our lives immeasurably for the worse? The evidence is beyond dispute.

America is drowning in a state of unredeemable debt — $17 trillion in actual debt and, according to economic historian Niall Ferguson, in the vicinity of $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities [2], while one in five households [3] depends on food stamps. At the same time, it is printing money like there’s no tomorrow — and there may not be — while subsidizing green energy fiascos at enormous cost to the taxpayer ($90 billion [4] in wasted stimulus funds, and counting). It finds itself in the throes of a metastasizing race war, caused in no small degree by the president’s rhetoric and behavior and fomented by his attorney general. It is a country increasingly governed by executive fiat and by an administration rocked by a near-endless gyre of political and ideological scandals. It is a country whose federal government opposes voter ID, opening the door to electoral corruption. It is a country that spies [5] on its own citizens, software corporations and web search engines, tries avowed terrorists in civilian courts, allows its ambassador and his entourage to be killed, without reprisal, and suffers its higher echelons to be riddled with Muslim Brotherhood operatives, giving the impression of a College of mujtahids. They are the advance cohort. “Today,” writes Larry Kelley in his sobering book Lessons from Fallen Civilizations [6], “millions of militant Muslims awake every morning plotting the destruction of the US. Many are among us.” And there will be more, if these [7] reports [8] of fast-tracking the citizenship applications of large numbers of Muslim immigrants are reliable, as they appear to be.

It is a country whose president purges its military — 197 senior officers, including nine commanding generals [9] — as did Turkey’s autocratic leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan to ensure the continuity of his regime. It is a country that refuses to defend its borders, even suing to keep them as porous as possible. It is a country shifting precipitously to the Left, now mired in the exorbitant socialist travesty of Obamacare built on an ascending pyramid of lies and false enrollment numbers [10] — or in the words of L.A. County Deputy District Attorney Patrick Frey at his Patterico blog [11], “they’re not just lying about politics now. They’re lying about data. They’re lying about everything. All the time. Constantly. It’s what you have to do to prop up an unsustainable government. … You lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie.”

It is a country whose domestic agenda is predicated on the Marxist principle of redistributive economics that amounts to stealing from the productive class to maintain an ever-growing parasitical constituency. It is a country at war with honest science, transmuting NASA into a program for Muslim outreach [12] and buying into the Gore/Hansen/Mann-inflated, IPCC climate scam. It is a country that is retreating on every front and that has lost the Middle East [13] as well as the respect of its adversaries[14]. It is a country that betrays its allies and endangers the world in the process, as in the phony, eagerly sought agreement that allows a self-described genocidal and nuclearizing Iran to keep spinning its centrifuges while profiting from relaxed sanctions. It is a country whose administration has sold its loyal partner, Israel, down the Jordan River.

“The United States is no longer a rational nation,” mourns [15] James Lewis. “Under Obama we are burning our traditional allies, and since weakness brings aggression, Iran is now empowered, China is grabbing ocean territory for shale deposits, and the worst offenders against women’s rights are now elected to the UN Human Rights Commission.” It is hard to contend with his summation.

All this proceeds under the direction of a president who has sealed his vital documents so that very little of crucial importance is known about him.

Read more at PJ Media