Archive for August 19, 2016

« WarSclerotic home page

Donald Trump and Islamists

August 19, 2016

Donald Trump and Islamists, Dan Miller’s Blog, August 20, 2016

(The views expressed in this article are mine, and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

An “Islamist” is a Muslim who seeks to impose Islamic (Sharia) law worldwide, including in America. There are Muslims in America who do not want that to happen, yet few of them seek actively to prevent it. I refer here to those who do try, not as “moderate Muslims” — an essentially badly used and hence meaningless term — but as “Muslim reformers.”

On August 15th, Donald Trump delivered an address, generally well-received in conservative circles, on the dangers of Islamist immigration and how he intends to guard against those who intend to have Sharia law imposed and/or to engage in terrorist activities.

Here’s a video of Trump’s address:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIfTKOWAWt8

The text is available here.

Here’s a video about Trump’s plan:

According to an article at Breitbart titled Donald Trump’s Outreach to Moderate Muslim Leaders Highlights Clinton Failure in Egypt,

In his foreign policy speech on Monday, Donald Trump stated that he would “amplify the voice” of moderate Muslim reformers in the Middle East, saying, “Our Administration will be a friend to all moderate Muslim reformers in the Middle East, and will amplify their voices.”

He also said that he would work with Egypt, Jordan and Israel in combating radical Islam, saying, “As President, I will call for an international conference focused on this goal. We will work side-by-side with our friends in the Middle East, including our greatest ally, Israel. We will partner with King Abdullah of Jordan, and President Sisi of Egypt, and all others who recognize this ideology of death that must be extinguished.” [Emphasis added.]

He said that, as President, he would establish a “Commission on Radical Islam,” saying, “That is why one of my first acts as President will be to establish a Commission on Radical Islam – which will include reformist voices in the Muslim community who will hopefully work with us. We want to build bridges and erase divisions.”  [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

Under the Obama Administration, US policy has not been friendly towards our Muslim allies such as Egypt. Hillary Clinton recently said in a primary debate with Bernie Sanders that, in Egypt, you basically have an “army dictatorship”.

Egypt is one of the most catastrophic foreign policy failures of the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton’s State Department. President Obama started his outreach to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood when he delivered his 2009 Cairo speech. The US Embassy invited 10 members of the Muslim Brotherhood to attend the speech, undermining US ally Mubarak – who had rejected to previous U.S. efforts to reach out to the Brotherhood. [Emphasis added.]

Islamism

Islamism is a totalitarian vision to impose Sharia law worldwide:

Unfortunately, Obama’s “countering violent extremism” farce has chosen to ignore, if not to encourage and even adopt, Sharia law and its consequences:

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser is a Muslim reformer of the type Trump hopes to recruit for his efforts. A video of an interview with Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, an American Muslim of Syrian descent and a proponent of an Islamic reformation, is provided below. However, first it will be useful to understand the goals of Dr. Jasser and his His organization, American Islamic Forum for Democracy:

The American Islamic Forum for Democracy’s (AIFD) mission is to advocate for the preservation of the founding principles of the United States Constitution, liberty and freedom, through the separation of mosque and state.

AIFD is the most prominent American Muslim organization directly confronting the ideologies of political Islam and openly countering the common belief that the Muslim faith is inextricably rooted to the concept of the Islamic State (Islamism). Founded by Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, AIFD looks to build the future of Islam through the concepts of liberty and freedom.

AIFD’s mission is derived from a love for America and a love of our faith of Islam. Dr. Jasser and the board of AIFD believe that Muslims can better practice Islam in an environment that protects the rights of an individual to practice their faith as they choose. The theocratic “Islamic” regimes of the Middle East and some Muslim majority nations use Islam as a way to control Muslim populations, not to glorify God as they portend. The purest practice of Islam is one in which Muslims have complete freedom to accept or reject any of the tenants or laws of the faith no different than we enjoy as Americans in this Constitutional republic.

AIFD believes that the root cause of Islamist terrorism is the ideology of political Islam and a belief in the preference for and supremacy of the Islamic state. Terrorism is but a means to that end. Most Islamist terror is driven by the desire of Islamists to drive the influence of the west (the ideas of liberty) out of the Muslim consciousness and Muslim majority societies. The underlying philosophy of Islamism is what western society should fear most. With almost a quarter of the world’s population Muslim, American security will never come without an understanding and winning out of the ideas of liberty by Muslims and an understanding of the harm of political Islam by non-Muslims.

AIFD seeks to build and establish an institution that can provide an ideological infrastructure for the ideas of liberty and freedom to Muslims and our future generations. We seek to give Muslims a powerful intellectual alternative to political Islam (Islamism) ultimately seeking the defeat of political Islam as a theo-political ideology.

Some readers will likely think that Dr. Jasser’s efforts to reform Islam would, in the unlikely event that they prove successful, create something that is not Islam. I disagree. Mohamed (and hence Islam) changed quite radically when he was driven out of Mecca and settled in Medina, where he became a warlord. In Mecca, he had been relatively peaceful and tolerant of other religions. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali states here,

In the early days of Islam, when Muhammad was going from door to door in Mecca trying to persuade the polytheists to abandon their idols of worship, he was inviting them to accept that there was no god but Allah and that he was Allah’s messenger.

After 10 years of trying this kind of persuasion, however, he and his small band of believers went to Medina, and from that moment, Muhammad’s mission took on a political dimension. Unbelievers were still invited to submit to Allah, but after Medina, they were attacked if they refused. If defeated, they were given the option to convert or to die. (Jews and Christians could retain their faith if they submitted to paying a special tax.) [Emphasis added.]

No symbol represents the soul of Islam more than the Shahada. But today there is a contest within Islam for the ownership of that symbol. Who owns the Shahada? Is it those Muslims who want to emphasize Muhammad’s years in Mecca or those who are inspired by his conquests after Medina? On this basis, I believe that we can distinguish three different groups of Muslims.

The first group is the most problematic. These are the fundamentalists who, when they say the Shahada, mean: “We must live by the strict letter of our creed.” They envision a regime based on Shariah, Islamic religious law. They argue for an Islam largely or completely unchanged from its original seventh-century version. What is more, they take it as a requirement of their faith that they impose it on everyone else.

I shall call them Medina Muslims, in that they see the forcible imposition of Shariah as their religious duty. They aim not just to obey Muhammad’s teaching but also to emulate his warlike conduct after his move to Medina. Even if they do not themselves engage in violence, they do not hesitate to condone it. [Emphasis added.]

It is Medina Muslims who call Jews and Christians “pigs and monkeys.” It is Medina Muslims who prescribe death for the crime of apostasy, death by stoning for adultery and hanging for homosexuality. It is Medina Muslims who put women in burqas and beat them if they leave their homes alone or if they are improperly veiled.

The second group—and the clear majority throughout the Muslim world—consists of Muslims who are loyal to the core creed and worship devoutly but are not inclined to practice violence. I call them Mecca Muslims. Like devout Christians or Jews who attend religious services every day and abide by religious rules in what they eat and wear, Mecca Muslims focus on religious observance. I was born in Somalia and raised as a Mecca Muslim. So were the majority of Muslims from Casablanca to Jakarta. [Emphasis added.]

Yet the Mecca Muslims have a problem: Their religious beliefs exist in an uneasy tension with modernity—the complex of economic, cultural and political innovations that not only reshaped the Western world but also dramatically transformed the developing world as the West exported it. The rational, secular and individualistic values of modernity are fundamentally corrosive of traditional societies, especially hierarchies based on gender, age and inherited status.

Trapped between two worlds of belief and experience, these Muslims are engaged in a daily struggle to adhere to Islam in the context of a society that challenges their values and beliefs at every turn. Many are able to resolve this tension only by withdrawing into self-enclosed (and increasingly self-governing) enclaves. This is called cocooning, a practice whereby Muslim immigrants attempt to wall off outside influences, permitting only an Islamic education for their children and disengaging from the wider non-Muslim community.

It is my hope to engage this second group of Muslims—those closer to Mecca than to Medina—in a dialogue about the meaning and practice of their faith. I recognize that these Muslims are not likely to heed a call for doctrinal reformation from someone they regard as an apostate and infidel. But they may reconsider if I can persuade them to think of me not as an apostate but as a heretic: one of a growing number of people born into Islam who have sought to think critically about the faith we were raised in. It is with this third group—only a few of whom have left Islam altogether—that I would now identify myself. [Emphasis added.]

These are the Muslim dissidents. A few of us have been forced by experience to conclude that we could not continue to be believers; yet we remain deeply engaged in the debate about Islam’s future. The majority of dissidents are reforming believers—among them clerics who have come to realize that their religion must change if its followers are not to be condemned to an interminable cycle of political violence.

How many Muslims belong to each group? Ed Husain of the Council on Foreign Relations estimates that only 3% of the world’s Muslims understand Islam in the militant terms I associate with Muhammad’s time in Medina. But out of well over 1.6 billion believers, or 23% of the globe’s population, that 48 million seems to be more than enough. (I would put the number significantly higher, based on survey data on attitudes toward Shariah in Muslim countries.)

In any case, regardless of the numbers, it is the Medina Muslims who have captured the world’s attention on the airwaves, over social media, in far too many mosques and, of course, on the battlefield.

The Medina Muslims pose a threat not just to non-Muslims. They also undermine the position of those Mecca Muslims attempting to lead a quiet life in their cultural cocoons throughout the Western world. But those under the greatest threat are the dissidents and reformers within Islam, who face ostracism and rejection, who must brave all manner of insults, who must deal with the death threats—or face death itself. [Emphasis added.]

For the world at large, the only viable strategy for containing the threat posed by the Medina Muslims is to side with the dissidents and reformers and to help them to do two things: first, identify and repudiate those parts of Muhammad’s legacy that summon Muslims to intolerance and war, and second, persuade the great majority of believers—the Mecca Muslims—to accept this change. [Emphasis added.]

Islam is at a crossroads. Muslims need to make a conscious decision to confront, debate and ultimately reject the violent elements within their religion. To some extent—not least because of widespread revulsion at the atrocities of Islamic State, al Qaeda and the rest—this process has already begun. But it needs leadership from the dissidents, and they in turn stand no chance without support from the West. [Emphasis added.]

Is Dr. Jasser a Mecca Muslim, who wants Islam to revert to the religion as practiced in Mecca? So it seems to me, and that is by no means what the Council on American Islamic relations (CAIR) wants. It has labeled Dr. Jasser and his organization “Islamophobic:”

In 2013, CAIR published a major report, “Legislating Fear: Islamophobia and its Impact in the United States,” which identifies 37 organizations dedicated to promoting the type of anti-Islam prejudice that can lead to bias-motivated incidents targeting American Muslims. The Islamophobia report isavailable on Kindle.

Jasser was featured in that report as an enabler of anti-Muslim bigotry. The report noted that Jasser heads a group that “applauded” an amendment to Oklahoma’s state Constitution that would have implemented state-sponsored discrimination against Islam.

Jasser also narrated “The Third Jihad,” a propaganda film created by the Clarion Fund, which depicts Muslims as inherently violent and seeking world domination. Following revelations that the film was shown as part of training at the New York Police Department, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly called it “wacky” and “objectionable.”

Here is the “propaganda film” referred to by CAIR:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XUub1no1qw

Finally, here is Dr. Jasser’s video about Trump’s plan to evaluate the ideological views of Muslims who attempt to enter the United States with a view to keeping out those who favor Sharia law, terrorism and the Islamisation of America. Dr. Jasser favors it and also offers good advice.

If, as seems likely, President Trump replaces the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas-linked organizations such as CAIR with non-Islamist, Muslim reform organizations such Dr. Jasser’s, the focus will shift from the Department of Homeland Security’s “Countering Violent Extremism” program of demonizing “Islamophobia” to excluding Islamists from American and preventing their domestic terror activities as well as defeating their efforts directed to the Islamisation of America and the imposition of Sharia law.

Dr. Jasser and his reformist colleagues have not been shy about how they view Islam and how they want it to change. As Hirsi Ali noted in the article quoted above,

[T]hose under the greatest threat are the dissidents and reformers within Islam, who face ostracism and rejection, who must brave all manner of insults, who must deal with the death threats—or face death itself.

I submit that it up to us, not to reject them on the notion that all Muslims are dangerous, but to accept them — as Donald Trump appears to have done — and to work with them in their efforts to change not only Islam but how it functions in America.

Categories: CAIR, Donald Trump, Islam, Islam in America, Islamic immigration, Islamic jihad, Islamic reformation, Islamic terrorism, Islamist organizations, Islamists, Islamists in America, Islamists vs Islam, Sharia law, Zuhdi Jasser
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

What’s the Number of Terrorists We’ll Accept from a U.S. Mosque Before We Start Asking Questions?

August 19, 2016

What’s the Number of Terrorists We’ll Accept from a U.S. Mosque Before We Start Asking Questions? Counter Jihad, Shireen Qudosi, August 19, 2016

[A]s a collective society, we need Muslim Reformer-lead conversation about Islamic philosophy, a principle tenet in Trump’s foreign policy speech

***************

In the aftermath of one of Islamism’s bloodiest summers, Western countries are stepping up efforts to filter for potential threats. Germany has held raids targeting Islamist preachers suspected of recruiting ISIS supporters. Belgium launched a police hunt for an imam’s son who walked down the street loudly praying to Allah for the annihilation of all Christians. And France recently banned the “burkini” – the Muslim adaptation of a swimsuit. At this point, it’s a bandage on a gaping wound. More aggressive and strategic measures need to be taken to target the environment where Islamic supremacism flourishes, rather than just the behavior it produces. One place is in U.S. mosques.

For the last year, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has rallied for greater U.S. mosque surveillance. He’s introduced a series of ideas that are both shocking and bold in a climate where one more serious domestic terrorist attack could very likely escalate the situation beyond our control.

Principal among them, Giuliani proposed electronic monitoring tags and bracelets for Muslims on the terror watch list. The problem with this is ensuring the right people are on that list. If that watch list is anything like the TSA no-fly list (easy to get on, impossible to get off of), we have a problem. And just like with mosque surveillance that is made public, tracking radical threats doesn’t deter their activity. Islamic extremists have a start-up mentality: they are extremely flexible and expect to adapt to the environment. In the case of next generation Muslims, that activity will shift to universities, social venues, and online. This is why announcing a surveillance program is an ill-advised move. Don’t announce it, just do it.

The fact is, 80% of U.S. mosques are known to be complicit in promoting violence. The Islamic Society of Boston is one of them. At this one mosque we find, not only inciters of violence and hatred, but the inevitable result of that incitement: actual violent jihadists who’ve drawn blood. In the case of the ISB, it was perpetrators of the Boston Marathon Massacre in 2013.

And when Islamists complain about the need for mosques, chatter among Millennial Muslims show a growing frustration for mushrooming mosques at the expense of diminishing community services for Muslims in need.  In other words, Muslims themselves say the mosques aren’t necessary.

However, tracking activity within mosques is necessary given the causal relationship between extremism and mosque affiliation. For Giuliani, the imperative on tracking red-flagged Muslims with bracelets comes after a string of Western attacks by extremists who were on a terror watch list – or had at some point been detained for questioning. Though active monitoring can be implemented, there’s a greater question of resources. The reason many of these red-flagged terrorists went under the radar was because officials were simply overwhelmed with data.

The solution to curtailing America’s terror threat isn’t just one extreme solution or another; it’s a combination of extreme measures paired with creative initiatives. This starts with recognizing that mosques are a portal for Islamism and extremism. This is not to say that every mosque is hoarding ammunitions in the backroom, but rather mosques (1) aren’t challenging their own narratives of Islamic supremacy within their congregation and community, and (2) aren’t rejecting hate preachers who hold an animosity toward at West.

In addition to more sound surveillance programs that perhaps works with progressive Muslims, it would be advisable to put searing pressure on mosques, leaders, organizers and Islamic organizations that makes it clear that ambivalence, acceptance, and/or embrace of radical Islamic philosophy will not be tolerated. This means that as a collective society, we need Muslim Reformer-lead conversation about Islamic philosophy, a principle tenet in Trump’s foreign policy speech.

Alongside, the U.S. government has to recognize it’s in an ideological war, meaning that empowering counter narratives among Muslim reformers and critical thinkers – and funding initiatives and centers spearheaded by them – is no longer an option to be explored; it must be supported. This doesn’t mean additional funds for CVEor vague counter-terrorism funding. It means funds for hoisting the flag of reform and making it possible for true progressive to establish ideological lighthouses that build a movement.

But there’s a larger problem: a total lack of solidarity between party lines and across national and state agencies.

Giuliani correctly pointed out the need for continued surveillance programs, especially after the Orlando Shooting – an attack that is strongly suspected to have been triggered in part by radical imams. These programs were in place under Bloomberg but were halted under current New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio.

The New York City Police Department has also faced wavering support for its efforts to combat Islamic extremism in the city that has faced the most brutal Western assault by Islamic extremists. Though a post 9/11 era saw support for increased surveillance and controls, that support has dwindled with each changing of the guards – at a national stage from Bush to Obama, and more regionally, between NYPD Police Commissioner Ray Kelly to newcomer Bill Bratton. Bratton disbanded a critical undercover police unit assigned to look for terrorist activity in New York Mosques and social venues popular among local Muslims. Bratton also chose to shelf an instrumental 92 pages report that was heralded as groundbreaking.

And nationally, while the CIA and the FBI joined forces post 9/11 to pool resources and create efficient information networks, the FBI has largely failed in their attempt to recruit and deploy undercover agents. Caught between fruitless community relations with Islamists and a failure to put into action credible undercover assets, the FBI has faced a backlash from the Muslim community for entrapment scenarios that have actually created viable threats.

It’s clear that any plan moving forward is going to need having everyone on the same page. That starts with recognizing we’re dealing with an ideological problem that goes beyond jihadi training grounds overseas. We’re dealing with a mindset that goes beyond mosques and borders.

Categories: Countering violent extremism, Islamic immigration, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic radicalization, Islamic reformation, Islamists in America, Mosques, Obama and Islam, Obama and Islamic terrorism
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

‘Clinton Cash’ Author: Clinton Foundation Foreign Cash Ban ‘Too Little, Too Late’

August 19, 2016

‘Clinton Cash’ Author: Clinton Foundation Foreign Cash Ban ‘Too Little, Too Late’, Breitbart, Peter Schweizer, August 18, 2016

Bill-Clinton-Hillary-Clinton-Clinton-Global-Initiative-Foundation-AP-640x480Greg Allen/Invision/AP

If it would be wrong for Hillary’s foundation to accept foreign cash as president, why wasn’t it wrong for Hillary’s foundation to accept foreign cash from oligarchs and countries who had business pending on her desk as Sec. of State?

*****************

In the wake of reports that the Clinton Foundation may have been hacked, Hillary Clinton’s embattled foundation announced on Thursday that, if Clinton is elected, her foundation will no longer accept the kinds of foreign and corporate donations at the heart of the Clinton Cash scandal.

The new pledge is a stunning tacit admission of wrongdoing, but it comes too little too late and raises the obvious question: If it would be wrong for Hillary’s foundation to accept foreign cash as president, why wasn’t it wrong for Hillary’s foundation to accept foreign cash from oligarchs and countries who had business pending on her desk as Sec. of State?

Moreover, if, as has been confirmed by numerous mainstream media organizations, Hillary Clinton violated her ethics pledge with the Obama administration to disclose all Clinton Foundation donations, why should the American people believe she would now honor a new pledge to forgo bagging cash from foreign oligarchs and countries?

After all, as both Bloomberg and the Washington Post have reported, Hillary’s foundation has still not revealed 1,100 foreign donations. And as Clinton Cash revealed, other hidden foreign donations include four totaling $2.35 million from Ian Telfer, the former head of one of the Russian government’s uranium companies, Uranium One. Let that sink in: the head of Russian’s uranium company was transferring funds to Hillary Clinton’s foundation.

Only now, with the fear of hacked emails being made public, has Hillary Clinton decided to entertain the idea of putting an end to the unprecedented practice of a sitting executive branch official with foreign policies pending on her desk accepting hundreds of millions of foreign dollars.

Indeed, for years, and as recently as this week, voices across the political spectrum have been appalled by the glaring conflict of interest and pleaded for the Clinton Foundation to reject foreign money in the hopes of reducing the threat of influence peddling and pay-to-play schemes. The New York Times, the Boston Globe, and even former Democratic National Committee Chairman Ed Rendell have all called on Hillary to stop. She refused. Only once it became clear that the Clinton Foundation may have been vulnerable to hacking, and the potential exposure of internal communications became a serious threat, did she decide to cut off the spigot of foreign funds into her foundation.

This week, Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) launched a probe to discover why the Obama Dept. of Justice blocked multiple FBI field office requests to investigate the Clinton Foundation. That’s a start. And the Clinton Cash documentary has now been viewed well over three million times.

But pressing broader questions remain, questions national mainstream media have heretofore been afraid to ask Hillary Clinton about the most glaring and vast series of conflicts of interest in modern American politics.

Hillary Clinton has not answered why her State Dept. approved the transfer of 20% of all U.S. uranium to Russia while not disclosing to the Obama administration that nine investors in that uranium deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Hillary Clinton has not answered why her brother, Tony Rodham, sat on the board of a company that received a rare “gold exploitation permit” from the Haitian government while she was dispersing billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in Haiti earthquake disaster relief.

Hillary Clinton has not answered why she hid $2.35 million in Clinton Foundation donations from the head of one of the Russian government’s uranium companies.

Hillary Clinton has not answered why she has yet to release the names of the 1,100 foreign Clinton Foundation donors that both Bloomberg and the Washington Post confirm remain secret.

Hillary Clinton has not answered why it was appropriate for Bill Clinton to deliver a $500,000 speech in Moscow paid for by a Kremlin-backed bank while she led the so-called Russian reset as Sec. of State—a Clinton Cash revelation so egregious, that even the progressive New Yorker magazine was left to ponder, “Why was Bill Clinton taking any money from a bank linked to the Kremlin while his wife was Secretary of State?”

Hillary Clinton has not answered why her current campaign chairman, John Podesta, sat on the board of a company alongside Russian officials that received $35 million from Rusnano, Vladimir Putin’s funding apparatus.

Hillary Clinton has not answered whether her husband will stop giving paid speeches.

Myriad questions have gone unasked and unanswered about the toxic brew of foreign cash and Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. decisions.

Perhaps now, with this stunning new tacit admission of unethical and inappropriate behavior by Hillary Clinton and her foundation, will the mainstream media find the spine to do the hard work of investigative reporting and the courage to demand serious answers.

Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton Cash film, Clinton Foundation, Corruption, Department of State, Hillary Clinton
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

NEW: Donald Trump’s First General Election Ad, “Two Americas”. MAGA! HD

August 19, 2016

NEW: Donald Trump’s First General Election Ad, “Two Americas”. MAGA! HD, YouTube, August 19, 2016

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UqwQCB48dA

Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump
Tags:

Comments: 2 Comments

Germany’s “Guests” Refuse to Work

August 19, 2016

Germany’s “Guests” Refuse to Work, Power Line,  John Hinderaker, August 18, 2016

This is the kind of news item that has Angela Merkel in political trouble:

According to mayor Bernd Pohlers of the eastern town of Saxony Waldenburg, the asylum seekers refused to accept the work that was offered to them after they arrived in the country.

The local council spent £600 arranging for the men to have uniforms but were stunned when they were told they would not complete it because they were “guests of Angela Merkel”.

While asylum seekers are not allowed to work under immigration rules within the EU, they are allowed to do voluntary work.

However officials in the district of Zwickau came up with a plan to help encourage those without employment to get back to work and to help them become more accepted within the local community.

In order to do this they created voluntary jobs which included a nominal payment of £18 for 20 hours work.

But all of the male residents of the local refugee accommodation who initially agreed to get involved in the charitable activities quit after discovering there was a minimum wage £7.30 (€8.50) in Germany.

The men had been picked up and offered transportation from their paid-for housing where they are also given food and then dropped home.

Mayor Pohlers said: “It was subsequently argued by these people that they are guests of Mrs. Merkel and guests do not have to work.

“Furthermore, they were of the opinion that there is a minimum wage (€8.50) in Germany, and that this had to be paid by the City Waldenburg.”

Despite attempts at mediation the asylum seekers refused to return to work.

No comment is really necessary, except perhaps to note that it is folly to design immigration policies with no regard to culture.

Categories: Germany, Islamic refugees, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Merkel, Work
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Nashville Sheriff To Force All New Hires Thru “Islam 101” Course, Taught by Muslims

August 19, 2016

Nashville Sheriff To Force All New Hires Thru “Islam 101” Course, Taught by Muslims, Creeping Sharia, August 18, 2016

(All bold print is from the original. — DM)

nashville_muslims_4494Sheriff Daron Hall (right) talks with Zulfat Suara of the American Muslim Advisory Council about new “Islam 101” class for jail guards.

Source: Nashville Sheriff To Hire Advocate For Muslim Inmates And Add ‘Islam 101’ To Jail Guard Training | Nashville Public Radio

Davidson County Sheriff Daron Hall says he wants jail guards to better understand the practices and beliefs of Muslim inmates. So he has accepted a request from local Muslim leaders to teach “Islam 101” classes for jail staff, and he plans to hire a part-time advocate as a go-between with inmates.

Does Hall want his staff to understand stonings, amputations, beheadings and other “practices and beliefs” of Muslims? Or the whitewashed version of sharia that Islamic supremacists will sell him for a nice price?

Hall’s moves follow a recent sit-down meeting with highly influential Islamic leaders. And they come at a time when the Muslim community is growing, along with their presence inside county jails.

“Let me be very blunt about it: We need a much better understanding in law enforcement, in this country, in this city, anywhere, to understand the various cultural issues,” Hall said in opening the July 12 meeting. “We need help understanding what the sensitivities about various religious and other aspects are so we’re not stomping all over what is a very precious feeling.”

Let us be blunt: THIS IS AMERICA – NOT A MUSLIM COUNTRY! When you are jailed for your crimes you lose some of your rights. The Sheriff Daron Hall’s of the country are failing in their duties to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Instead, they are aiding and abetting them. 

Guards have learned to accommodate prayer times and dietary needs, Hall said. But there’s still the chance of causing friction, simply for lack of knowledge.

In other words, Hall’s staff has already been trained to submit to and enforce the sharia

He used the case of a DUI arrest as an example. While his team handles DUI defendants most days, he said they might not realize “that’s very offensive as it relates to the use of alcohol … they’re unaware of the sensitivity to that in the Muslim faith.”

The irony. The sheriff wants to treat drunk Muslims more sensitively than drunk non-Muslims. If they’re so sensitive, why are they drunk driving? You really can’t make this up.

The Davidson County Sheriff’s Office has run “cultural awareness” training for years, but it hasn’t been delivered by Muslims.

“The quality and the impact of that is minimal at best,” Hall told WPLN.

So the sheriff took the sit-down meeting with local imams and members of the American Muslim Advisory Council (AMAC), which is also meeting with the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation and the field office of the FBI.

nashville_muslims_8992Top staff in the Davidson County Sheriff’s Office met with Nashville Muslim leaders. Credit Tony Gonzalez / WPLN

[Comments from terror-listed HAMAS-front group CAIR removed]

Hall will send top administrators and all new hires through “Islam 101” first, and then he wants to incorporate the lesson into in-service training for current staff.

He’s also looking to AMAC to nominate candidates for the new part-time Muslim advocacy position. That person will work in jails and neighborhoods to relay messages, starting with the need for more Muslims to volunteer within the jails — a point made by the imams who see disgruntled letters from inmates.

The fox really is in the hen house in Nashville. Just what America needs, more Muslims in jails on top of the increasing number of Muslim criminals already in there.

More from the Tennessee Council 4 Political Justice who writes:

Did Sheriff Hall bother to vet the individuals and group he was embracing? Is he aware that the Islamic Center of Nashville and the Salahadeen Centerhosted another discredited ISNA official involved with Muslim prison chaplains?

In 2010, these mosques invited Louay Safi, who at that time was ISNA’s director of Communications and Leadership Development to speak to their congregations. Right before Safi’s Nashville visit, a Dallas newspaperpublished a story revealing the fact that Safi’s contract as a lecturer on Islam at military bases, had been suspended. Safi was a trainer on Islam at Fort Hood (Texas) in November 2009, when U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan killed 13 Americans in a jihadist shooting spree. Safi had previously been identified as part of a terrorism financing group and was later named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing prosecution.

CAIR is another Muslim Brotherhood organization that was also named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation prosecution. Paul Galloway, the director of is the former director of the CAIR-Houston office. Galloway now lives in Nashville and is the director of the AMAC (American Muslim Advisory Council) and ACO (American Center for Outreach) – and one of the invitees who met with Sheriff Hall about training his staff on Islam.

The sheriff agreed with Galloway and the other Islamist representatives, that training for his staff can only be delivered by Muslims. The sheriff further agreed, the only way to ensure that all Muslim criminals’ demands are accommodated, he would hire a Muslim advocate.

Sheriff Hall has admitted that as the Muslim population in Davidson County has grown, so has “their presence inside county jails.”

In 2013, Davidson County’s population was 658,602 including approximately6,296 Muslims. That equals about 1% of the total population and yet, according to the sheriff, they make up to 10% of the jail population – “more than double what you’d find ten years ago.”

Speaking for the group, Galloway, said they also wanted to “be versed in the policies that govern the use of force in jails and what triggers local authorities to initiate deportation proceedings.”

Are these questions about deportation of illegal immigrant criminals or refugee criminals who would still subject to deportation? And why are they asking questions about use of force in jails? That sounds like Black Lives Matter talking.

Tennessee’s Islamist organizations including AMAC, ACO and the Faith and Culture Center (FCC), have formally joined forces with Black Lives Matter (BLM). The founder and president of the FCC, Daoud Abudiab, is also a founding member of AMAC, and the president of the board of the TN Immigrant & Refugee Rights Coalition (TIRRC). All these groups are collaborating with BLM.

AMAC and others also plan to meet with the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation and the field office of the FBI – which tells you they are up to something else. What is it?

More subversion of law enforcement? Demands for greater diversity in the ranks of law enforcement? More opportunities to replay their victim narrative?

The real question that should be asked is if this is the religion of peace, why are there so many Muslim criminals in the Davidson County jails?

TCPJ knows all too well Islam is not a religion of peace. Islam does not even mean peace, it means submission. And AMAC is all about submitting the good people of Tennessee to sharia law. As noted in 2012, this same Muslim group has been submitting the Department of Children’s Services in Tennessee to the sharia.

They have the children covered and the jails. That’s a huge recruiting pool for their Islamic brainwashing.

Send the sheriff an email, here are some links to share with him and his staff.

Terror-linked Muslim Groups Vetting U.S. Prison Imams

Feds BOP Failed To Conduct Check On Prison Imam Who Called for Apostates Death

Terror cleric al-Awlaki trained Muslim chaplains at DoD

DoD’s Muslim chaplain program – birthed by convicted terrorist

U.S. military’s Muslim chaplains – trained & ‘vetted’ by Islamists

U.S. Military Hires Chaplains from Muslim Brotherhood Entity

Yale Muslim Chaplain: Muslims will win final victory in the West

Harvard’s Muslim chaplain sees wisdom in killing apostates

U.S. Prisons Churning Out Thousands Of Radicalized Muslims

Islamic Indoctrination in U.S. Prisons

Categories: CAIR, Countering violent extremism, FBI, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, Islam and terrorism, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic radicalization, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Sharia law
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Will National Security Finally Bring Warring Republicans Together?

August 19, 2016

Will National Security Finally Bring Warring Republicans Together? PJ Media, Roger L Simon, August 18, 2016

trump_patton_banner_8-18-16-1.sized-770x415xc

Will national security finally bring warring Republicans together?

That was what was on my mind when I perused an email from Stephen Miller, Donald Trump’s national policy director, describing a roundtable on defeating radical Islamic terrorism the Trump campaign held Wednesday.  It read in part:

The participants talked about improving immigration screening and standards to keep out radicals, working with moderate Muslims to foster reforms, and partnering with friendly regimes in the Middle East to stamp out ISIS. This is a stark contrast to Hillary Clinton who wants to bring in 620,000 refugees with no way to screen them…

All well and good, I thought, but nothing extraordinary there, until I scanned the list of the sixteen participants.  Besides the usual Trump spokespeople—Rudy Giuliani, Jeff Sessions, General Mike Flynn—some surprising names popped up that had been critics of Donald, often severe ones.  Among them were former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who once called a Trump presidency dangerous in that notorious January 2016 edition of the National Review when a boatload of conservative intellectuals ripped into the real estate tycoon as the Devil’s son; Congressman Peter King, who as recently as August 10 remonstrated with Donald for his “dumb remark” on the Second Amendment that allegedly encouraged gun owners to go after Hillary (King agreed that it didn’t really, but insisted Trump should choose his words better); and Andrew C. McCarthy, the former U. S. attorney famed for his successful prosecution of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman in the 1993 first bombing of the World Trade Center.

McCarthy—now a best-selling author and columnist for the National Review and PJ Media, among other venues—had this to say on NRO about Trump after his July convention speech:

On Thursday night came the harvest: The party was formally taken over by an incoherent statist whose “conservatism” is not done justice by scare quotes. Oh… and he has trouble telling the good guys from the bad guys.

Whoa. Words like that don’t usually get you invited to the subject’s roundtable, at least without some considerable advance peacemaking.  And yet there was McCarthy, sitting at Trump’s table.

Andy McCarthy has been a friend of mine for some years, so I decided to call him and pick his brain about what went down.

As it turned out, McCarthy told me, the event was not contentious at all. Bygones were apparently bygones.  In fact, Trump was so cordial to him, Andy wondered whether Donald knew who he was.  (I strongly suspect he did.  As we all know, Trump watches The Kelly File—where McCarthy appears frequently—with some devotion.)

The meeting was quite substantive from Andy’s perspective with all agreeing that we are at war not with “terror” (a tactic) but with radical Islam (a violent ideology).  A good deal of time was spent in this lawyer-rich environment on the legalisms of how to pursue that war.  Congress originally authorized the use of military force against terrorists only three days days after September 11, 2001.  Given the gravity of the current situation, would that need to be amended or reauthorized for a Trump administration? And if so, how?  (One can assume a Hillary Clinton administration would not even go near this question.  For them, fighting terror is a police problem.)

McCarthy—who said he spoke seven or eight times, quite a bit for a two-hour session—delineated three goals for the war:

  1. To strike down jihad wherever it arises.
  2. To squeeze all terror-supporting regimes (not give them millions and billions as Obama just did Iran). And:
  3. To rid ourselves of political correctness so we can oppose and destroy the evil doctrine of radical Islam.

Also in attendance were the newbie Trump campaign leaders: new-media mogul Stephen Bannon (now CEO) and pollster Kellyanne Conway (now campaign manager).  Much has been made by the MSM and, alas, by some of Trump’s more persistent Republican critics that the candidate supposedly blew it again by announcing these promotions just after he made a well-received speech on urban policy.  Of course, these same people were complaining a week before that Trump was understaffed.

So it goes in our incessantly back-biting political world where few people want to keep their eye on the ball because that ball—radical Islam—is more than a little frightening.  This roundtable group convened by the Trump campaign evidently intends to keep its eye on that ball and if Republicans have any brains they will rally around them, finally rally around Trump.  Because here’s the painfully obvious truth:  If we don’t extinguish radical Islam, if it continues to spread throughout the world, nothing else matters.  Who cares if the tax rate is 5% or 500% when you don’t have a head.

And now, in his latest speech, Trump has said “in the heat of debate” he “may have caused personal pain.”  Get that?  The long-awaited apology.  Now let’s win!

Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump, Islamic immigration, Islamic terrorism, National secuity, Republican Party
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Strasbourg Rabbi Stabbed In ‘Allahu Akhbar’ Attack

August 19, 2016

Source: Strasbourg Rabbi Stabbed In ‘Allahu Akhbar’ Attack

 Strasbourg

by Oliver JJ Lane19 Aug 2016

A man dressed in traditional Jewish religious dress and described in reports as a Rabbi has been hospitalised this morning after a knife attack by a man who was claimed to have shouted “Allahu Akbar” as he struck.

The 62 year old male reportedly avoided death as the knife narrowly missed vital organs as he was stabbed around 11:45 am today. France’s Le Journal du Dimanche (LeJDD) cites “several witnesses” who heard the “Allahu Akhbar” cry, and reports the comment of Strasbourg Rabbi Mendel Samama who visited the injured man in hospital, identified locally as a Rabbi called Mr. Levy.

Mr. Samama told the paper: “He is shocked, he is weak… He is aware there has been a miracle. He was hit in the abdomen. It went centimetres from a vital organ… we hope he will recover”. The victim is described as now being in stable condition.The stabbing

The stabbing took place outside the victim’s home in Strasbourg’s Jewish quarter, just 500 yards from the city’s main Synagogue.

The attacker is being held in police custody, and in common with a number of other apparently religiously motivated attacks in Europe in 2016 the perpetrator has a “psychiatric history”. Britain’s Mirror newspaper has reported French police have already discounted terror as a motivation for the attempted “Allahu Akhbar” slaying of the Jewish male.

LeJDD reports: “The perpetrator was also known for similar offenses, according to a source familiar with the matter”. France Bleu reported the as of yet unnamed assailant had past form, having already attacked another Jewish man in a similar fashion in 2010. The paper stated the suspected attack was placed into psychiatric care after the last assault.

This story is developing.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

The hard truth – it don’t take a genius

August 19, 2016

The hard truth – it don’t take a genius, Israel National News, Meir Jolovitz, August 19, 2016

The traditional supporters of the Democratic Party, must confront, nay, stop the Obama/Clinton machine from fully deserting the only democracy in the Middle East or be judged by future generations as those who surrendered to willful negligence at best, and to fascist totalitarianism from the left at worst. The path to peace will not come from the euphemisms that the Clinton camp uses to shroud its platform. And it will not be realized by vilifying Israel and glorifying the assault against it. By every measure, the Democrats have failed, miserably, in an arena that will soon be threatened with an Iranian nuclear capability – while Hillary Clinton boasts of being a significant architect of that endeavor.

It is therefore imperative that Donald Trump use his platform to speak the truth; enough to convince a significant enough segment of the voting population – those few percentage points that so often determine an election – that the Obama/Clinton train is fast approaching an unavoidable precipice.

*****************************

That age-old maxim that posits that one can tell much about someone by their choice of friends is invariably true, and yet, when applied to the political arena, it is even less telling than one’s choice of advisors. Witness the case of Hillary Clinton, a political chameleon who, despite every effort to be all things to all people, can be readily and transparently identified by those under whose cloak she hides: her advisors.

Political advisors, chosen carefully by aspiring presidential candidates, are often the window by which one can view the policies yet to follow. The very choice of these advisors allows one to understand that “it don’t take a genius” to know what’s coming next. President Obama, influenced by his Middle East mentor (and notorious PLO spokesman) Rashid Khalidi, subsequently filled his dance card with Valery Jarrett, Samantha Power, John Kerry, Ben Rhodes, and yes, Hillary Clinton. And today, we have a deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran that even its architects now shamelessly admit was passed through Congress, with a supportive blessing of the media, as a result of duplicitous power brokering.

No, it don’t take a genius.

Hard-pressed to list her own accomplishments, has chosen her own advisors as part of her inner circle. It begins and ends with Sidney Blumenthal. And, silently in the shadows, his son Max.

Sidney Blumenthal, a Clinton friend and advisor for many years and her confidant formulating her failed Libya policy – even despite a strong admonition by Obama during her stint as Secretary that he be distanced from State Department policy-making – continues to be the Svengali behind the scenes. A Clinton electoral success in November guarantees that Blumenthal emerges from the shadows to the great consternation of all friends of Israel. And, at great expense to American efforts to maintain a stable Middle East.

Until Obama, Israel had been viewed by virtually every chief executive as the moral imperative when counting allies in a world where the United States found fewer friends than foes. A Clinton presidency would be disastrous and do little to right that wrong.

The reluctant release by Clinton of her many secret emails have revealed a disturbing picture that ought to shake up all friends of Israel. The Blumenthal plan is one which calls for isolating and then breaking Israel. But it might be too late. Polls indicate that the American Jewish vote will again be quite heavily Democratic, despite the fact that the Democratic platform will be completely incongruous with their strong desire that American support for Israel never be compromised. And the damage that will be done will be immeasurable. Yes, it’s time to panic. Better now, than the day after the presidential election.

And yes, it’s time for Israel’s supporters to look beyond the Democratic Party.

Abraham Lincoln is credited for having opined that you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Well, sort of. In November 2016, approximately 130,000,000 million voters will determine the US’s future, and the course that it charts. The Democratic Party has found a formula that allows it to fool over 67 million people, all of the time. Enough to have won the last two elections with a candidate found wanting on so many fronts. You see, it seems not to matter. African Americans will vote overwhelmingly Democratic. As will the Hispanics, and yes, American Jews as well. Unless, in the coming months, we succeed in getting them to wake up to the truth. The hard truth.

One cannot recall in recent history a presidential election which pitted two candidates whose ideological base has been so contrastingly different, on policy matters, both domestic and foreign. And few foreign affairs are more important, more challenging, and more portentous than the volatile Middle East. In defense of Western values, proponents of a strong and secure Israel, which includes, of course, the tens of millions of America’s evangelical Christians, need to pay careful attention.

As Clinton’s foreign affairs guru, Sidney Blumenthal’s view of the Middle East, fashioned so closely to the vitriolic anti-Israel writings of his son – who questions Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State, who refers to Israelis as Judeo-Nazis, and who ironically supports the global boycotts of the Jewish State – is cause for alarm. Decidedly proud of his son Max, an apologist for Hamas, the elder Blumenthal has on several occasions expressed equal pride in getting Hillary Clinton to read his scathing screeds, and remarkably, to comment quite favorably.

The antipathy of Blumenthal to Israel is well known, and very much ignored, remarkably in Jewish circles as well, particularly by those who support the Clinton campaign. This inexcusable attitude, suspended halfway between ignorance and indifference, carries with it consequences unlike ever before.

It don’t take a genius.

Someone needs to speak the truth. The hard truth. The traditional supporters of the Democratic Party, must confront, nay, stop the Obama/Clinton machine from fully deserting the only democracy in the Middle East or be judged by future generations as those who surrendered to willful negligence at best, and to fascist totalitarianism from the left at worst. The path to peace will not come from the euphemisms that the Clinton camp uses to shroud its platform. And it will not be realized by vilifying Israel and glorifying the assault against it. By every measure, the Democrats have failed, miserably, in an arena that will soon be threatened with an Iranian nuclear capability – while Hillary Clinton boasts of being a significant architect of that endeavor.

It is therefore imperative that Donald Trump use his platform to speak the truth; enough to convince a significant enough segment of the voting population – those few percentage points that so often determine an election – that the Obama/Clinton train is fast approaching an unavoidable precipice.

In the movie “Wall Street,” Gordon Gekko barks out: “I’ll make you a deal. You stop telling lies about me, and I’ll stop telling the truth about you.” Well, given the unyielding assault on Israel, fraught with its many euphemisms from the Obama/Clinton camps, and perpetuated by all those that hide under the mantle of progressivism, it behooves proponents of Israel to continue to tell the truth.

Categories: 2016 elections, Democrats, Donald Trump and Israel, Hillary Clinton and Israel, Obama and Israel
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

US moves nuclear weapons from Turkey to Romania

August 19, 2016

US moves nuclear weapons from Turkey to Romania Home | Global Europe | News

By Georgi Gotev, Joel Schalit | EurActiv.com

18 aug. 2016 (updated: 18 aug. 2016)

Source: US moves nuclear weapons from Turkey to Romania – EurActiv.com

 

EXCLUSIVE/ Two independent sources told EurActiv.com that the US has started transferring nuclear weapons stationed in Turkey to Romania, against the background of worsening relations between Washington and Ankara.

According to one of the sources, the transfer has been very challenging in technical and political terms.

“It’s not easy to move 20+ nukes,” said the source, on conditions of anonymity.

According to a recent report by the Simson Center, since the Cold War, some 50 US tactical nuclear weapons have been stationed at Turkey’s Incirlik air base, approximately 100 kilometres from the Syrian border.

During the failed coup in Turkey in July, Incirlik’s power was cut, and the Turkish government prohibited US aircraft from flying in or out. Eventually, the base commander was arrested and implicated in the coup. Whether the US could have maintained control of the weapons in the event of a protracted civil conflict in Turkey is an unanswerable question, the report says.

Another source told EurActiv.com that the US-Turkey relations had deteriorated so much following the coup that Washington no longer trusted Ankara to host the weapons. The American weapons are being moved to the Deveselu air base in Romania, the source said.

Deveselu, near the city of Caracal, is the new home of the US missile shield, which has infuriated Russia.

US activates Romanian missile defence site, angering Russia

The United States switched on an $800 million missile shield in Romania yesterday (12 May) that it sees as vital to defend itself and Europe from so-called rogue states but the Kremlin says is aimed at blunting its own nuclear arsenal.

EurActiv.com

Romania was an ally of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, but it never hosted nuclear weapons during that period. Stationing tactical US nuclear weapons close to Russia’s borders is likely to infuriate Russia and lead to an escalation. The stationing of Russian nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962 was the closest the Cold War came to escalating into a full-scale nuclear war.

EurActiv has asked the US State Department, and the Turkish and the Romanian foreign ministries, to comment. American and Turkish officials both promised to answer. After several hours, the State Department said the issue should be referred to the Department of Defense. EurActiv will publish the DoD reaction as soon as it is received.

In the meantime, NATO sent EurActiv a diplomatically worded comment which implies that allies must make sure that US nuclear weapons deployed in Europe remain “safe”.

“On your question, please check the Communiqué of the NATO Warsaw Summit (published on 9 July 2016), paragraph 53: “NATO’s nuclear deterrence posture also relies, in part, on United States’ nuclear weapons forward-deployed in Europe and on capabilities and infrastructure provided by Allies concerned. These Allies will ensure that all components of NATO’s nuclear deterrent remain safe, secure, and effective,” a NATO spokesperson wrote to EurActiv.

The NATO summit took place a few days before the failed coup in Turkey. At that time, the risks for the US nukes in Incirlik were related to the proximity of the war in Syria and the multiple terrorist attacks that have taken place in Turkey in recent months. For some of the attacks, Ankara blamed Islamic State, and for others the PKK, the Kurdish military organisation that appears on the EU and US terrorist lists.

Strong denial by Romania

The Romanian foreign ministry strongly denied the information that the country has become home of US nukes. “In response to your request, Romanian MFA firmly dismisses the information you referred to,”  a spokesperson wrote.

According to practice dating from the Cold War, leaked information regarding the presence of US nuclear weapons on European soil has never been officially confirmed. It is, however, public knowledge that Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Italy host US nuclear weapons.

After the failed putsch, relations between Washington and Ankara are at their worst since Turkey joined NATO in 1952. Ankara believes the US government supports the Turkish US-exiled cleric Fethullah Gülen, whom it accuses of having masterminded the failed coup. Turkey is demanding Gülen’s extradition, and the issue is expected to take center stage when US Vice President Joe Biden visits Turkey on 24 August.

Arthur H. Hughes, a retired US ambassador, wrote in EurActiv yesterday (17 August) that Gülen has indeed received considerable assistance from the CIA.

Will Ankara take aim at Patriarch Bartholomew?

Against the background of the failed coup in Turkey and the ongoing crackdown on sympathisers of Fethullah Gülen, Ankara might take aim at the Orthodox patriarch of Constantinople, or try to win him, writes the US Ambassador (retired) Arthur H. Hughes.

EurActiv.com

Russia has capitalised on the stained US-Turkey relations and there are fears in Western capitals that NATO-member Turkey could draw even closer to Moscow – with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan bluntly making it clear he feels let down by the United States and the European Union.

Turkey and Russia decide to ‘reset’ their relationship

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Tuesday (9 August) pledged to boost their cooperation and forget the “difficult” moments of the past.

Erdogan’s visit to Putin’s hometown of Saint Petersburg is also his first foreign trip since the failed coup against him last month that sparked a purge of opponents and …

EurActiv.com

Positions

Asked today (18 August) by Romanian journalists to comment the EurActiv article, Mihnea Motoc, Romania’s Minister of Defense, has stated that there was is no thinking, or plans, toward hosting US nuclear weapons in Romania.

“There is no thinking, no plans in this direction. We can only call this information a speculation”, Motoc said.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: 8 Comments