Dr. Jasser discusses Hillary’s news conference & how it failed to hit key issues 09.08.2016, AIFDtv via YouTube
The blurb beneath the video states,
Dr. Jasser joins Fox Business’ Varney and Company discussing Hillary Clinton’s news conference and the ineffectual questions that were asked instead of focusing on failed Middle East policies and how to combat ISIS. Also, discussed is the wall that is being built in Calais, France to keep migrants out of the U.K.
The other day the New York Times published a story about how Danes are souring on Muslim immigrants, and how some feel guilty about it:
Johnny Christensen, a stout and silver-whiskered retired bank employee, always thought of himself as sympathetic to people fleeing war and welcoming to immigrants. But after more than 36,000 mostly Muslim asylum seekers poured into Denmark over the past two years, Mr. Christensen, 65, said, “I’ve become a racist.”
He believes these new migrants are draining Denmark’s cherished social-welfare system but failing to adapt to its customs. “Just kick them out,” he said, unleashing a mighty kick at an imaginary target on a suburban sidewalk. “These Muslims want to keep their own culture, but we have our own rules here and everyone must follow them.”
When Christensen says “I’ve become a racist,” he has internalized the false charge made by Muslims, and their willing collaborators, that those who are sensibly anxious about Islam are “racists.” Since that scare-word automatically consigns one to the outer darkness, when even perfectly intelligent people with perfectly reasonable grievances turn that word on themselves, it is clear that something is amiss. Mr. Christensen needs to be unapologetic for his views, and he should start by watching his language: Islam is not a race, antipathy to Muslims does not constitute “racism.” Leave that word alone.
If Mr. Christensen wishes to feel guilty, he ought to feel guilty only about what future generations of Danes will inherit: a country which, because of the numbers of Muslims allowed in during Mr. Christensen’s time, will be far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous for native Danes than it might otherwise have been.
As the Times story notes, “Denmark, a small and orderly nation with a progressive self-image, is built on a social covenant: In return for some of the world’s highest wages and benefits, people are expected to work hard and pay into the system. Newcomers must quickly learn Danish — and adapt to norms like keeping tidy gardens and riding bicycles.”
But just look at how the Times reporter then slants the story at every point: “The center-right government has backed harsh measures targeting migrants, hate speech has spiked, and the anti-immigrant Danish People’s Party is now the second largest in Parliament.”
“Harsh measures targeting migrants,” “hate speech has spiked,” “anti-immigrant party.” It all sounds so terrible, until you ask a few questions.
What “harsh measures” are these? Apparently the “harshest” measure, passed in January, empowers the Danish authorities to confiscate valuables from new arrivals, both Muslim and non-Muslim, to offset the cost of settling them. It has seldom been enforced, and does not apply to the first $1,500 a migrant possesses.
Why exactly is this considered “harsh”? Should migrants not be expected to contribute, when they are capable of doing so? After all, they arrived uninvited, are immediately the recipients of a cornucopia of expensive benefits, and these benefits now flowing to them were paid for by generations of Danish taxpayers, who thought they were providing for poorer members of their own, that is Danish, society.
Is it “harsh” to require immigrants to pass exams in Danish? At present, only 72%, or a little more than 2/3, manage to learn even elementary Danish. Is it “harsh” to make immigrants take a citizenship exam, requiring them have studied the laws and mores of the Danes, given that they have the great good fortune to have been admitted to this peaceful pleasant land? Is it wrong to require immigrants to study the history of Denmark, since they have decided they’ve come to Denmark to stay? If the goal is to integrate these foreigners, the free courses and tests required will only further that goal.
And why are these putatively “harsh” measures described as “targeting immigrants,” rather than, in less loaded words, described simply as “applying to immigrants”? Since these are measures to further the successful integration of immigrants, of course they apply only to — but do not “target,” which has a distinctly menacing ring — immigrants. As to the casual assertion that “hate speech has spiked,” where is the evidence for this? Since not a single example of such “hate speech” appears in the entire Times piece, the reader must simply take it on faith that Danes – again labelled as “right-wing” – have been guilty of “hate speech.”
Let’s try to figure out what the reporter had in mind as conceivable “hate speech.” Suppose a member of the Danish People’s Party points out that Muslim Somalis in Denmark commit ten times as many crimes per capita as native Danes. That is a statement of fact, not “hate speech.” Or suppose a member of the Danish People’s Party notes that Muslim immigrants receive a much larger benefits package, and for a longer period, given their high unemployment, as compared to what non-Muslim immigrants and native Danes receive. Would that be “hate speech,” or simply a statement of fact?
“There is new tension between Danes still opening their arms and a resurgent right wing that seeks to ban all Muslims and shut Denmark off from Europe.”
So the reporter sees a Morality Play with two kinds of Danes: the Good Danes, “still opening their arms,” and the Bad Danes, “a resurgent right wing that seeks to ban all Muslims.” But even the Good Danes did not invite the Muslims in, and never quite were “opening their arms.” And even if the Bad Danes want to end Muslim immigration, none have as yet called for removing all of the Muslims already in Denmark. Not quite a Morality Play.
The Times reporter continues:
There is tension, too, over whether the backlash is really about a strain on Denmark’s generous public benefits or a rising terrorist threat — or whether a longstanding but latent racial hostility is being unearthed.
First, what does it mean to write “there is tension” over whether the “backlash” is about “a strain on generous public benefits” OR “a rising terrorist threat”? “Tension” over trying to apportion blame for the anxiety Muslims have caused? Why can’t there be anxiety among Danes about both the cost to their welfare system of Muslim migrants, and about the threat of Islamic terrorism to their very lives? Why can’t there be more than one reason for growing antipathy to Muslim migrants in Denmark?
And then there is that other proffered reason, which Muslims and their apologists find much to their liking: Could anxiety about the effect of Muslim migrants on Danish society reveal “a longstanding but latent racial hostility”? Just think, this “racial hostility” has been so longstanding but so very latent that no one noticed it, and strange to say, now that the Danes have revealed themselves as “racists,” their “racism” apparently doesn’t apply to all black people, for black African Christians in Denmark have rarely had any troubles, while, strange to say, even white Muslims (as from Syria) have engendered antipathy. So this hostility must have to do not with race but with Islam. The Danes are not revealing “racial hostility,” but well-grounded fears about Islam and the behavior of Muslims. Those who talk about a “latent racial hostility” in this famously tolerant country are deliberately trying to make the Danes feel guilty about their well-justified fears, and to deflect attention away from Islam
The Times reporter does concede that “perhaps the leading — and most substantive — concern is that the migrants are an economic drain. In 2014, 48 percent of immigrants from non-Western countries ages 16 to 64 were employed, compared with 74 percent of native Danes.” There then follows the sensible comments of immigration officials about the need to avoid “parallel societies,” and the story of one Muslim immigrant family’s success (but no similar stories about the many cases of immigrant unemployment and crime), that of an Iraqi engineer who allows his children to eat pork at school, and who with his family attends church to learn about Christianity. How typical do you think this Muslim immigrant family is?
This report from Denmark, with its loaded words – “right-wing,” “hate speech,” “targeting immigrants,” “harsh measures” – does not leave much room for thoughtful analysis of what is clearly a grave problem everywhere in Western Europe. That problem, let me repeat, is that Muslim migrants, in large numbers (one million arrived in Germany alone in 2015), have been moving into Europe, bringing Islam with them in their mental luggage, putting great strain on the welfare systems of every country in which they end up, and on the criminal justice systems because of their sky-high crime rate, and, given Muslim terrorist attacks in nearly a dozen Western countries, on the security services too.
Yet it is amazing that even now, after all the murder and mayhem that has been committed by Muslims, and not only those of ISIS who dutifully cite Islamic texts to justify their every act, people in Denmark are embarrassed to admit to an anxiety about Islam, and instead accuse themselves (“I’ve become a racist”) rather than ask what it is about the ideology of Islam that makes it uniquely difficult, perhaps even impossible, for Muslim migrants – always with a few remarkable exceptions — to integrate.
That is the question to be asked again and again: what explains the success of so many non-Muslim immigrants in managing to integrate into many different European countries, and the failure of so many Muslim immigrants to do so in those same countries? And why do the peoples of Western Europe allow themselves to feel so apologetic about their anxiety about, and antipathy toward, Islam? And when will we, the world’s Infidels, dare to study the texts that explain Muslim acts and attitudes, or shall we forever deny ourselves the right to engage in such study, that is, from doing the one thing that makes the most sense?
Yes, Hillary Knows Classified Information Does Not Always Come with a ‘Header’, PJ Media, Andres C. McCarthy, September 6, 2016
(Hillary’s comments about “headers” are in the first substantive part of her appearance during the commander in chief forum and during the question and answer segment. — DM)
Well, it looks like Hillary Clinton’s oft-repeated canard — “I never sent or received any e-mails marked classified” — has been so thoroughly discredited that it now poll-tests poorly. Hence, she broke out a new wineskin for the same old rotgut at last night’s candidate forum: the “header.”
The issue arose when she was bluntly questioned by a military vet who pointed out that, had he recklessly mishandled classified information the way she did, he’d have been prosecuted. She countered:
Classified material has a header that says “top secret,” “secret,” “confidential.” None of the emails sent or received by me had such a header. What we have here is the use of an unclassified system by hundreds of people in our government to send information that was not marked. There were no headers, there was no statement … “top secret,” “secret” or “confidential.”
Obviously, Mrs. Clinton is tactically morphing “marked” into “header” because some of her emails were marked classified.
Were she to repeat the “nothing marked classified” lie and leave it at that, the public would be reminded not only that she is known to have lied about this (FBI director Comey acknowledged as much in his House testimony); but also that she fibbed in ludicrous fashion when called on the markings in her FBI interview — claiming to have believed the “(C)” designation had to do with putting paragraphs in alphabetical order. (Of course, it refers to classified information at the confidential level, something well known to Clinton because, among other reasons, she was for a decade a heavy-duty consumer of classified documents, in which the “(C)” designation is ubiquitous.)
Clinton is also seeking to exploit what little is to be gained from the FBI’s feeble defense of her transmission of documents marked classified. Comey noted that there were “portion markings” within three e-mail documents (meaning there were designations — e.g., “(C)” — that indicated a particular paragraph in the document was classified). Yet, he also testified that those documents did not conform to the proper procedure for marking documents classified. That procedure includes placing on the document a header indicating its classification level (e.g., “confidential,” “secret” or “top secret”), so there is no mistaking its status.
Clearly, the absence of a header does not change the fact that the classified portions of the three documents in question were marked as such. Nor does it alter the fact that Mrs. Clinton, a regular consumer of classified information who claims always to have been careful in handling it, would have known exactly what the markings meant — and, thus, that storing or transmitting a document containing such markings on a private, non-secure system was illegal.
Nevertheless, as I have repeatedly pointed out since the Clinton email scandal came to light in March 2015, this whole brouhaha about “marked” classified — and, in its new iteration, classification “headers” — is a red herring. A great deal of classified information is not marked at all.
If an official with a security clearance sits in on a meeting or briefing at which classified information is presented orally, it would be unlawful for that official to transmit that information via a non-government, non-classified email system. The fact that such an email would obviously not be marked would make no difference — officials trained in handling classified information and given security clearances for access to it are intimately aware of the rules.
To take another notorious example, General David Petraeus, the former CIA director, knew that his diaries contained top secret information notwithstanding the absence of markings and headers designating them as such. That is why, when he pled guilty to mishandling classified information, he did not attempt to use the lack of markings on the diaries as a defense. Such a claim, he had to know, would have been frivolous.
But the most significant point here is that Hillary Clinton knows that what she is saying is nonsense.
As Jeryl Bier recently pointed out at the Weekly Standard, Clinton signed a “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement” on January 22, 2009 upon becoming secretary of State. That agreement clearly states (my italics):
As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards of Executive Order 12959, or under any other Executive order or statute that prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of information in the interest of national security[.]
Not only does her Agreement elucidate in unmistakable terms that no markings or headers are necessary for information to be deemed classified. It also includes Clinton’s acknowledgment that “I have received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information.” This, despite telling the FBI in her interview that she couldn’t recall any briefing or training regarding the handling of classified information.
France: On Its Way to Being a Jew-Free Nation? Gatestone Institute, Robbie Travers, September 8, 2016
♦ Incitement to murder Jews was described by the French press as “mild mannered”.
♦ In 2014, supposed anti-Israel protesters attacked a Paris synagogue and trapped the congregants inside. The attackers’ chants apparently included “Death to the Jews,” “Murderous Israel,” and “One Jew, Some Jews, All Jews are Terrorists.”
♦ The terrorist attacks on Jews in France are the culmination of years of Jew-hatred tolerated with little official criticism.
♦ With ISIS and Hamas banners and flags flying, groups in Paris pledged the genocide of the Jews with impunity. When chants of “Death to the Jews,” ring out publicly, is it surprising that people might actually begin to think that killing Jews is just fine?
During the past 15 years, it is estimated that tens of thousands of Jews have fled France.
Of these, approximately 40,000 have fled to Israel, according to Israeli figures. Many thousands of others have fled to Canada, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere. France is increasingly becoming a nation in which it is no longer safe to be openly Jewish.
To explain why so many Jews are leaving Europe, it helps to understand the increasingly toxic context developing in France for Jews.
Synagogues and Jewish schools across France are regularly guarded by police officers and soldiers. Jews in Europe see their holy sites and places of worship under threat.
In December 2015, 14 Jews were poisoned by a toxic substance which had been smeared on to the keypad to access a Paris synagogue. No one was killed by the poison, but “25 firemen rushed to the synagogue, where they treated congregants and traced their condition to the daubed lock.”
Another Paris synagogue was vandalized and a window smashed. Synagogues seem to be one of the targets in a new wave of anti-Semitism rising across France and Europe.
On the way to a synagogue, a 13-year-old boy was called a “dirty Jew” and then seriously assaulted. The attackers are said to have attacked the boy because of he wore a skullcap. Only 71 years after the end of one of the darkest periods of European history, after which we pledged “never again,” it seems to have become open season to hate and persecute Jews.
The terrorist attacks on Jews in France are the culmination of years of Jew-hatred tolerated with little official criticism. In 2014, supposed anti-Israel protesters attacked a Paris synagogue and trapped the congregants inside. The attackers’ chants apparently included “Death to the Jews,” “Murderous Israel,” and “One Jew, Some Jews, All Jews are Terrorists.”
It seems people who openly call for hatred against Jews, to the point of murder, can now claim to be just “anti-Israel,” rather than anti-Semitic. Incitement to murder Jews was described by the French press as “mild mannered”. When talk of racial murder is dismissed in such a way, is it any wonder that radical clerics continue to preach vicious dehumanising hatred that culminates in violence?
If the media were more accurate, it would describe these “anti-Israeli” protesters as “anti-Semitic” and “inciters of violence and genocide.”
When swastikas are painted in one Paris’ largest squares by those claiming to oppose Israel, and ISIS and Hamas banners and flags are flying, and groups pledge the genocide of the Jews with impunity, is it any wonder that individuals might support these groups? When chants of “Death to the Jews,” ring out publicly, is it surprising that people might actually begin to think that killing Jews is just fine?
Both far-right Islamists and neo-Nazis joined forces in Paris during a “Day of Rage.” More than 17,000 of them marched, chanting “Jew, France is not for you.” Is it surprising that Jews are flee the country in increasing numbers?
When Islamists chant outside a central Paris synagogue, “Hitler was right,” whilst some of his victims still walk this earth, is it surprising people in French society may start to emulate him, or at least aspire to?
Synagogues are not the only institutions facing serious threats. Jewish schools across France are under heavy guard by police and soldiers.
French soldiers guard a Jewish school in Strasbourg, February 2015. (Image source: Claude Truong-Ngoc/Wikimedia Commons)
The tragedy is that we have allowed French and European societies to need these guards by tolerating those promoting injustice, prejudice and hatred.
Paul Fitoussi, principal of the Lucien de Hirsch Jewish school in Paris, summarises why France has become so toxic for Jews:
“People nowadays think it is dangerous to be Jewish in France because there was a series of events: The kidnapping and murder of Ilan Halimi ten years ago, the terror attack at the Jewish school in Toulouse four years ago, the stabbings in Marseille, last year’s attack at Hyper Cacher market – there is a problem. For the French, worrying about security issues is new to them. I talk to the police but they do not know what to do. They brought armed soldiers to the schools, but I know that in the long term this is not a solution.”
There seems to be a common thread running throughout the incidences above and attacks on Jews today. In the Ilan Halimi case, the victim was targeted on the basis of his race, and the perception that being a Jew made him wealthy. A similar attack was noted by a fifth-grader at the Lucien de Hirsh school. He said his attackers, foreign in origin, “asked if I was Jewish, I said yes, they said that the Jews are full of money, and if I did not give them my coat, they will kill me.” It seems that stereotypes of Jewish wealth perpetuated often by Islamists and others now seem commonplace in French society, and individuals are increasingly threatened with murder, robbery and extortion.
Not even public transportation is safe for Jews; in December, 2015, a man on a train in Paris verbally abused a group of Jews, stating that he wished to kill them. “If only I had a grenade here,” he said, “how do you call it, a fragmentation grenade, I would blow up this wagon with the fucking Jewish bastards.”
There has also been, since 2000, a troublingly large increase in the number of violent anti-Semitic attacks by Muslims in France. Multiple official figures have illustrated that in the last 20 years, the number of violent anti-Semitic acts has tripled. In France in 2014, there were 851 recorded anti-Semitic incidents, more than doubling the total from 2013.
Jews may represent less than 1% of France’s expanding and diverse population, but they are the victim of 40%–50% of France’s recorded racist attacks.
Jews are only the start of where Islamists begin to target people to whose existence they seem to object. Next, Islamists come for the LGBT, as seen in the Orlando shooting and with ISIS throwing gay people off buildings, and of course Christians, as we have seen in slaughtered in just one small example on a Libyan beach; and most frequently other Muslims, the majority victim of Islamists. Evidently no one is safe, and that includes all of us.
Perhaps it is best to finish on a note inspired from the work of Martin Niemöller (1892-1984), a prominent Lutheran pastor and scathing critic of Adolf Hitler. Consequently, Niemöller spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps, but had the fortune to survive.
His timeless poem does not need much transposing:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Socialist.Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Jew.Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Hillary: Islamic State saying, “Oh, please, Allah, make Trump president of America” Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer, September 8, 2016
“We’ve made a judgment, based on a lot of research, that bringing Islam into the definition of our enemy actually serves the purpose of the radical Jihadists, and there’s a lot of evidence of that.”
In reality, there is no such research, and could not be: the idea that naming the enemy would play into the hands of the enemy is a dogma of the Washington establishment that is based on two untested and unproven assumptions. The first of these is that to call the jihadis “jihadis” would confer upon them a spurious legitimacy that would aid in their recruitment. But it is absurd to think that Muslims are looking to non-Muslim political leaders to tell them what Islam is and isn’t. The second is that to speak honestly about the motivating ideology of the enemy would alienate our Muslim allies. But there is no reason why that should be so either. To acknowledge that those who are fighting us are Islamic jihadis doesn’t mean that every Muslim is or must be on their side. There are innumerable examples from Muslim history of various factions of Muslims fighting against other factions. And the Muslim nations who are for various reasons opposed to the Islamic State and al-Qaeda know full well what Islam teaches; it isn’t as if they really don’t know how Islamic those groups are. If that knowledge hasn’t stopped them from opposing those groups now, public acknowledgment of what they are wouldn’t, either.
“He quoted ISIS spokespeople rooting for Donald Trump’s victory, because Trump has made Islam and Muslims part of his campaign. And basically, Matt Olsen argues, the Jihadists see this as a great gift. They are saying, ‘Oh, please, Allah, make Trump president of America.”
Here Clinton contradicts herself. “Oh, please, Allah”? Hasn’t she just engaged in “bringing Islam into the definition of our enemy”? Hasn’t she just admitted that they are Islamic, despite her repeated claims to the contrary?
And does the Islamic State really want Trump to win? Unlikely that they would prefer someone who says he will fight them strongly over someone who will continue the weak and ineffective half-measures that are being employed today.
“Watch: Clinton claims ISIS praying for a Trump victory,” Israel National News, September 8, 2016:
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton gave her first interview to an Israeli media outlet this election season, sitting down for an exclusive interview with Israel’s Channel 2 that is set to air Thursday evening.
Clinton ripped into Republican nominee Donald Trump during the interview, claiming that his campaign rhetoric had bolstered the ISIS terror group.
When asked by interviewer Yonit Levi whether she would, if elected president, she would pursue the war on ISIS differently than her predecessor and, specifically, if she would refer to the conflict as a “war on radical Islam” – noting that the Obama administration has shied away from referencing “radical Islam” – Clinton suggested use of such terminology could actually strengthen Islamic terror.
“We’ve made a judgment, based on a lot of research, that bringing Islam into the definition of our enemy actually serves the purpose of the radical Jihadists, and there’s a lot of evidence of that,” Clinton responded.
The former Secretary of State then added that Matt Olsen, the former chief of the National Counterterrorism Center, had written in a TIME article, published Thursday, that “ISIS supports Donald Trump”.
“He quoted ISIS spokespeople rooting for Donald Trump’s victory, because Trump has made Islam and Muslims part of his campaign. And basically, Matt Olsen argues, the Jihadists see this as a great gift. They are saying, ‘Oh, please, Allah, make Trump president of America.”
“I’m not interested in giving aid and comfort to their aid and comfort to their evil ambitions,” added Clinton. “I want to defeat them, I want to end their reign of terror. I don’t want them to feel as though they can be getting more recruits because of our politics.”
The former First Lady then turned to her own plan for confronting ISIS, saying she would “intensify what is already happening: our air campaign, more support on the ground to the Arab and Kurdish fighters.”…
Obama Admin: Iran Was Only Paid $1.7 Billion in Cash After Hostages Released, Washington Free Beacon, Adam Kredo, September 8, 2016
Hassan Rouhani. Photo by Dennis Van Tine/Sipa USA
Senior Obama administration officials, under the threat of a subpoena, were forced to appear on Capitol Hill on Thursday to explain why lawmakers and the American public were kept in the dark about a $1.7 billion cash payment to Iran that has been widely viewed as a ransom to free imprisoned U.S. hostages.
Four senior administration officials declined to provide in-depth explanations of how U.S. funds were transferred to Iran, but said that at least $1.3 billion was withdrawn from a U.S. taxpayer fund and sent to Iran only after it released the hostages.
The payments to Iran were made in hard currency after the United States delivered the funds to European banks. The money was converted into hard currency and bank notes before being transferred to an official from the Central Bank of Iran for transport to Tehran, according to the officials.
Administration officials confirmed that the $1.7 billion payment only went through once the United States was able to secure the release of several U.S. hostages being held in Iran—though the officials would not say this amounted to a ransom.
The Obama administration also could not guarantee lawmakers that the money would not be spent by Iran to fund terror operations.
These disclosures appear to confirm key details about the payment that the administration had either denied or declined to elaborate on for months.
Details are only becoming public now following several news reports and leaks from Congress about the source of the payment, which has been shrouded in mystery since January, when it was first announced.
“This committee requested records … more than a month ago and to date the self-proclaimed most transparent administration in our history has failed to provide any, not one document to this committee,” said Rep. Sean Duffy (R., Wis.), a member of the House Financial Services Committee, during the hearing.
“The witnesses today only agreed under threat of subpoena” to appear before Congress, Duffy said.
The testimony by these administration officials is likely to fuel claims that the payment amounted to a ransom, following the admission that the administration only went through with the cash delivery after it was able to confirm that the U.S. hostages had left Iran.
“You can’t tell me that you guaranteed our prisoners would have been released had your money not been sent,” Duffy said to Christopher Backemeyer, a deputy assistant secretary for Iranian affairs at the State Department.
Backemeyer also could not provide a guarantee that the money would not be spent by Iran on terrorist operations.
“I can’t speak to every dollar that’s going to go in or out of Iran,” he said.
“There is a risk you have taken in providing $1.7 billion to the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world,” Duffy said.
European officials handed off the first payment of $400 million in cash to Iran on Jan. 17, only after Iran agreed to release the U.S. hostages following an evening of negotiations that included Secretary of State John Kerry, officials said.
After converting the U.S. funds to European bank notes and cash, the money was given to an “official from the Central Bank of Iran for transfer to Tehran,” according to Paul Ahern, assistant general counsel for enforcement and intelligence at the Treasury Department. “The funds were under U.S. government control until their disbursement.”
The remaining $1.3 billion was withdrawn from a U.S. taxpayer fund operated by the Treasury Department and sent to Europe. Once there, the money was converted into foreign currency and transferred to a representative of Iran’s central bank on Jan. 22 and Feb. 5.
Information about the payment and the circumstances surrounding it remains a mystery.
The administration officials made the decision to pay Iran in cash, even though other options existed.
“Iran had to have it in cash,” Ahren said. “Iran was very aware of the difficulties it would face in accessing and using the funds if they were in any other form than cash, even after the lifting of sanctions.”
A cash delivery “was the most reliable way that they received the funds in a timely manner and it was the manner preferred by the relative foreign banks,” Ahren said.
“For them,” Backemeyer added, “the critical need was they [Iran] got immediate access.”
The administration officials would not provide in-depth details, citing diplomatic sensitivities.
“My guess is, if any private citizen had done what this administration did, they’d be indicted on money laundering and the administration calls in diplomacy,” said Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R., Texas), who questioned why the deal was hidden from the public
“Why did the administration go to such great lengths to hide it from the American people?” Hensarling asked. “Why did I have to threaten subpoenas to get the administration to show up in the first place?”
The State Department’s Backemeyer explained that some details could only be divulged in a classified setting.
“There will be limitations to what I and my colleagues can say in an open setting,” he explained. “There are a number of litigations and diplomatic sensitivities that could jeopardize U.S. interests if we were to go into too much detail.”
When asked why the United states agreed to pay $1.3 billion in interest to Iran from a taxpayer fund, a State Department official bristled.
“The details of why we settled for this amount are litigation sensitive,” said Lisa Grosh, a legal adviser in the State Department’s office of international claims and investment disputes. “Iran’s lawyers would try to use my words or maybe even your words against us to help their position at the [claims] tribunal. I believe this settlement was the best thing for the United States.”
Is the Islamic State’s Plan to Conquer Rome So Far-Fetched? Clarion Project, William Reed, September 8, 2016
Photo: Islamic State propaganda magazine Dabiq
They are trying to actualize their goals not only through violent jihad, but also through population jihad (influx of Muslims) and by demanding Islamist privileges, such as parallel sharia courts.
Despite its centuries-long resistance to jihad-waging armies, much of Europe appears blind to history today. With its politically correct governments and misguided, “multi-cultural” ideologies, the European Union seems alarmingly clueless and desperate in the face of once-again rising Islamist threat.
************************
The Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) made a call to its cells in Europe through an encrypted text message in English, French, and Arabic on the social media over the weekend.
The Turkish news outlet NTV reported that via the ISIS-affiliated “Nasir Foundation,” the terror group sent a message to its members and sympathizers in Europe who are preparing for attacks, telling them to “either act immediately or annihilate all organizational information they possess.”
“Our brothers and sisters in Europe and especially in France, hurry up to carry out your acts. Also, be careful and cautious,” ordered the terror group.
“We hear that a lot of our brothers get arrested before carrying out their acts. We suggest you to delete all of the information and messages in your devices relating the Islamic State including photos, videos and applications. We also suggest you to carry out your acts before it is too late.”
ISIS allegedly made the warning after Syrian-born Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, the official spokesperson and a senior leader of the Islamic State, was killed in Aleppo. The U.S. and Russia both announced in separate statements that they killed al-Adnani in their airstrikes.
Since al-Adnani’s death, there have been calls for revenge attacks to be carried out by jihadist operatives, the Daily Mail reported.
“According to the respected Site Intelligence Group, which monitors jihadist activity, the threats were made on a pro-ISIS account on the encrypted Telegram messaging service, with one warning: ‘We will exterminate you.’”
In 2014, al-Adnani declared that supporters of the Islamic State from all over the world should attack citizens of Western states, including the US, France and UK.
“If you can kill a disbelieving American or European – especially the spiteful and filthy French – or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way, however it may be,” he said.
“Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him.”
IS declares it will conquer Istanbul, Rome
In its recently-released new English magazine Rumiyah (Rome), ISIS declared it will conquer Istanbul and Rome.
The magazine, which is the terror group’s second international publication after Dabiq, is published in several languages including English, Turkish, Russian and French.
As to why they chose the name Rumiyah, ISIS explained: “Rasulallah [prophet of Allah – Muhammed, the founder of Islam] heralded the Islamic conquest of Rome in end times. We ask our God to enable us to conquer this district and Konstantiniyye [Istanbul] which will be conquered before Rome.”
The Islamic State made Abu Muhammad al-Adnani the cover boy of the first edition of their new magazine, with calls for revenge of his death. The terror group called on their supporters to “sacrifice themselves,” a statement interpreted as a call to carry out terror attacks against European countries and other members of the anti-ISIS collation forces.
The Islamic State and Rome
“The conquest of Rome has been a primary goal since the beginning of the Islamic State,” writes journalist Dale Hurd of CBN News. “Muslim scholars say Muhammed prophesied that the two great Roman cities would be conquered: Constantinople and Rome.
“The Islamic State reveals part of its plan in its publication ‘Black Flags From Rome’,” added Hurd. “It will use sleeper cells and expects to get help from Muslims serving in European armies and from non-Muslim sympathizers. It also wants to fire missiles into Italy.”
Islamic Expansionist Campaigns in History
Muslim jihadist armies have targeted European territories since the inception of the religion in the 8th century.
The Islamic invasion of Hispania, for example, was the initial expansion of the Umayyad Caliphate over Hispania from 711 to 788. The invasion resulted in the establishment of the Emirate of Cordoba under the Muslim ruler Abd ar-Rahman I, who completed the unification of Muslim-ruled Iberia, or al-Andalus (Muslim Spain), between 756 and 788.
Europe was also a popular target of Ottoman jihadist armies. Ottomans conquered Constantinople in 1453 in a bloody military campaign, which marked the end of the Byzantine Empire.
Throughout centuries, Ottomans also occupied many other European nations such as Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia, Albania, Bosnia, Croatia, Hungary and Cyprus. They targeted and attacked other European lands, including Austria, Venice, and Poland.
Much of the present-day “Muslim world” was invaded and captured by Muslim imperial armies. Anatolia – today’s Turkey – was mostly Christian before the Turkish conquests of the 11th century. It also had sizable Jewish and Yazidi communities. Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism and Christianity were the major religions in Afghanistan during pre-Islamic era.
Today’s Iraq and Islamic Republic of Iran were a majority-Zoroastrian empire. In the Arabian Peninsula, there were Pagans, Jews, Zoroastrians and Christians before Islam took over.
Similarly, before the advent of Islam, the region which is today termed Pakistan was quite a diverse region with several religions — mainly Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism as well as local shamanistic and animist religions.
In Indonesia, the country with the largest Muslim population today, the primary religions were Hinduism and Buddhism, as were Bangladesh and Malaysia.
Violent or civilizational jihadi efforts have tremendously changed the demographic character and culture of entire nations in much of the world. The once-majority non-Muslim communities in those lands are either extinct or dwindling minorities today.
This is not to say that Christian armies have never used force to spread their religious beliefs. The conquest of Eastern Europe by the Teutonic Knights or the conquest of South and Central America by the conquistadors saw Christianity carried forward at the point of a sword.
The important factor is that while contemporary Christian movements look back on those periods of history as squarely in the past, Islamist movements see this history as inspiration for their dreams of the future.
The Islamic military conquest of Europe might sound unrealistic now, but the Islamic State and many other Islamist groups openly declare that they are still dedicated to their goal of world domination.
They are trying to actualize their goals not only through violent jihad, but also through population jihad (influx of Muslims) and by demanding Islamist privileges, such as parallel sharia courts.
Despite its centuries-long resistance to jihad-waging armies, much of Europe appears blind to history today. With its politically correct governments and misguided, “multi-cultural” ideologies, the European Union seems alarmingly clueless and desperate in the face of once-again rising Islamist threat.
EXCLUSIVE: DHS Defends Secretary’s Appearance At Terror Front Group’s Conference, Counter Jihad, Paul Sperry, September 7, 2016
(Please see also, Homeland Security Head Praises Islamic Supremacists. — DM)
Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson was “fully aware” that the Islamic Society of North America was implicated in a major terrorist fundraising case and ID’d by prosecutors as a front for a global jihadist movement that seeks to turn America into an Islamic state through infiltration and subversion when he agreed to speak at ISNA’s annual convention on Saturday, a DHS spokesman told CounterJihad.com on Wednesday.
Johnson was the highest-ranking U.S. government official and the first sitting Cabinet officer to speak in person before ISNA’s conference held last week in Chicago.
As CJ first reported Sunday, ISNA had been considered off-limits to such high-level appearances since the U.S. Justice Department in 2008 designated the group as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist financing case in U.S. history and a front organization for the radical Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood.
Johnson’s spokesman Neema Hakim told CJ that, despite ISNA’s terrorist ties and radical background, Johnson agreed to appear at the event because he considered it an “opportunity” to conduct outreach with the American Muslim community.
“DHS and the secretary are fully aware of past evidence and allegations concerning ISNA and carefully considered them before accepting ISNA’s invitation,” Hakim said. “However, in the current environment, he viewed the opportunity to address literally thousands of American Muslims as crucial to our homeland security efforts.”
Asked why speaking from another venue or through a video would not have provided the same opportunity to address Muslims, Hakim declined comment. He also did not immediately respond to a letter sent to Johnson Wednesday from Rep. Steve King and two other Republican lawmakers demanding Johnson “renounce the Muslim Brotherhood and suspend further dealings by you or your subordinates with its front organizations like the Islamic Society of North America.”
In the two-page letter, the lawmakers said they were “appalled” that Johnson would “legitimize, let alone pander to, an organization or its proxy that poses a threat to our constitutional republic and its people.”
Reps. King, R-Iowa, Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, and Randy Weber, R-Texas, added: “The fact that you have explicitly called for your appearance before ISNA to serve as a precedent for other Cabinet officials to do the same amounts not just to willful blindness about the nature of the enemy. It is malfeasance.”
In his speech, Johnson encouraged other Cabinet officials to follow in his footsteps, saying, “I am proud to have broken that glass ceiling, and to have created the expectation, in the future, that government officials of my rank will attend your annual convention.”
The congressmen called the Muslim Brotherhood “a foreign terrorist organization” and warned that its front groups and operatives in America “are using a variety of techniques — both violent and stealthy — to accomplish the Brotherhood’s stated goal of Sharia’s triumph globally and the reestablishment of the Caliphate.”
A manifesto of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood recovered by the FBI during a 2004 raid of the Virginia home of a terrorist suspect, details a secret plan to “destroy” America “from within” and replace it with an Islamic state through a “grand jihad.” The so-called “Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Group in North America” lists ISNA first among 29 groups the Brotherhood claims as “our organizations.”
Mortar fire from Syria fell 15 kilometers inside Israel A mortar shell that was fired from Syria into Israel yesterday apparently reached the farthest inside the Jewish state since the beginning of the Syrian Civil War. Israeli officials believe that it was spillover from the fighting in Syria.
Sep 8, 2016, 10:39AM
Rachel Avraham
Source: Mortar fire from Syria fell 15 kilometers inside Israel – Middle East | JerusalemOnline
Photo Credit: CBN
Yesterday, a mortar shell exploded in an open area in the Northern Golan Heights and the IDF had announced that it was a spillover from the fighting within Syria. However, it was revealed this morning that it landed 15 kilometers from the Syrian-Israeli border, which means that it reached the furthest inside Israel out of any Syrian mortar shell that landed in the Jewish state since the Syrian Civil War began.
It is said to be an artillery shell with a 100 millimeter diameter that fortunately did not hit a populated area even though it was shot from a long distance. This is the second time this week a mortar shell landed at a distance from the border fence unlike on previous occasions in recent months. Israeli officials appraised that even though the mortar was fired from a significant distance, it was still a spillover from the Syrian Civil War that was caused by the inaccurate firing of the Syrian organizations.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments