Archive for October 6, 2016

« WarSclerotic home page

Hillary Clinton’s “play for pay” campaign

October 6, 2016

Hillary Clinton’s “play for pay” campaign, Israel National News, Lee Kaplan, October 6, 2016

President Harry Truman once said that any politician who became wealthy as a result of being in public service was a crook. As the American presidential election looms near, Hillary Clinton is showing the former president’s statement to be true.

On leaving the White House at the end of her husband’s presidency, Hillary Clinton cried poverty. Yet today, after her stint in Congress and as the U.S. Secretary of State, her net worth is in excess of 100 billion dollars. To this day Mrs. Clinton has not openly told the truth about where all the money is coming from. Most of this largesse is the result of donations from foreign dictators (notably the Gulf Sheikhs in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE) and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to which these dictators belong.

What is the OIC?

It is a consortium of the Gulf Sheiks that also became a part of the United Nations. One of its key purposes of late is to try and have blasphemy laws created in the West and worldwide when criticism of Islam is voiced. It is also designed to get the Gulf Sheiks whatever they want from pusillanimous diplomats in the West.

The crux of the matter is how Hillary Clinton criticizes her presidential opponent by trying to suggest he is xenophobic, or more specifically “islamophobic” ( a silly term touted and promoted by UC Berkeley Hamas apparatchik Hatem Bazian, who also called for an “intifada” in America).  She says this is anathema to her humanitarian concern for Syrian refugees with which she wants to flood American shores.

Whereas Barack Obama brought in 10,000 such refugees and seeks to double the numbers, Ms. Clinton insists she wants this number increased to 550,000 or possibly even 600,000. Voters should note not only the fact that such a large number is bound to have many more refugees who are not vetted for security purposes – as is already being discussed in the Press. In fact, her insistence on these increased numbers is a glaring example of her engaging in “Pay for Play”:

The OIC pays her and she promises them she will absorb the refugees so OIC member nations won’t have to do it.

And one doesn’t need a deleted email to see this. To date, not one Gulf sheikh who donated to her foundation has offered to take in even one Syrian refugee. The Saudis, incredibly, have housing and bedding for three million refugees in their country. Originally created to house visitors for the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca every year, these domiciles have air conditioning, running water and all the facilities to take in more than the 600,000 refugees that Hillary is proposing.

But that might interfere with the solid gold faucets planned for the next palace. Just as American boys can die to save Kuwait, so to can the American taxpayer absorb the flotsam and jetsam of the Arab world.

As Secretary of State, Clinton oversaw a state department that somehow lost 3 billion dollars in tax dollars that are unaccounted for according to the GAO, that spent other tax dollars on building mosques overseas through USAID, that funds UNWRA “camps” where Palestinian children are taught they are to be the next generation of suicide bombers and terrorists, and that pays salaries to convicted terrorist murderers in Israel jails. Those salaries are sometimes greater than many Americans earn. USAID also funds 100% of Palestinian television that incites Arabs to murder the Jews.

In fairness, many of these things were started under the Bush administration, but just as many others were started or propagated during Bill Clinton’s presidency.

As Secretary of State she could have stopped much of this, but she chose not to do so. She let the Arab world indirectly have the US as a piggy bank for totalitarians, letting the Saudis fund world terrorism and rule the roost in Washington. All of this was part of “Pay for Play” as she solicited funds from the Sheikhs for her foundation.

One campaign clip had Clinton saying “We must not insult Islam!”  This was spoken like a true IOC campaigner and an example of a politician pandering to her money source. As terrorist attacks come to the U.S. in St. Cloud, in Phoenix and New York, we can hear Hillary carrying on about how the US must swallow up 600,000 more Muslim refugees – because she must have promised this to the Shieikhs. That’s real play for the pay.

Every one of those Syrian refugees will cost the US taxpayer dearly as well. They will require government health care that we can ill afford, plus food, education and other benefits. Even those who have no terrorists connections will bring with them anti-Semitism and a support ideology that will promote the Sheikhs and other totalitarian enemies of the United States, just as President Obama has done in surrendering nuclear control over Iran. Remember – Hillary presided over that one too. Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton will be paying back her funders at the expense of the American taxpayer as billions pour into her foundation in the form of funds that she can ultimately draw on, starting with daughter Chelsea.

Harry Truman obviously knew what he was talking about.

 

Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton Foundation, Crooked Hillary, Hillary Clinton and Islamic refugees, OIC, Saudi Arabia, United Nations
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Senate Must Act Now to Stop Obama’s Climate Change Treaty

October 6, 2016

Senate Must Act Now to Stop Obama’s Climate Change Treaty, Front Page Magazine, Joseph Klein, October 6, 2016

(Obama calls it an “executive agreement” but the UN — with Obama’s connivance– calls it a treaty. How does that make it a treaty? — DM)

barack-obama-in-a-stern-stance

The United States Senate must act urgently to save its treaty approval authority from irreversible damage inflicted by President Obama with the complicity of the United Nations. Congress has already allowed President Obama to get away with putting in force his Iran nuclear deal with no more than a pro forma review. His administration considered it a “political” arrangement, not a treaty. Now the Obama administration has doubled down with the Paris Agreement on climate change, which was negotiated last December and signed by President Obama in April. For domestic consumption, the administration contends that the Paris Agreement on climate change is no more than an “executive agreement,” which does not require Senate concurrence. However, for the purposes of making it legally binding on the United States under international law, the Obama administration has colluded with the United Nations Secretariat to designate the Paris Agreement as a treaty. In fact, in her October 5th press release regarding the latest developments of the agreement, U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power referred to the accord as a “treaty” that is on the verge of being enacted. Aside from legally binding requirements to periodically report on each state party’s progress in meeting individual country’s greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments previously submitted in writing to the UN, the Paris Agreement contains provisions that appear to impose additional legally binding financial commitments.

The Paris Agreement on climate change will go into legal effect thirty days after at least 55 countries, whose greenhouse gas emissions represent at least 55 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, have presented the legal instruments necessary under their domestic laws to become formal parties. Once the Paris Agreement goes into legal force, a state party can only withdraw upon at least three years notice. With India and the European Union countries added to the United States and China as well as scores of other countries, the thresholds are about to be met – but only if U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are included in calculating the 55 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions total. In order for the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to be counted, and the U.S. to be bound legally to the Paris Agreement after the thresholds are met, Obama had to find a way around submitting the Paris Agreement to the U.S. Senate for approval while still having it deemed a treaty under international law. His scheme was to enlist the help of the United Nations Secretariat, which has placed a universal climate change agreement at the top of its agenda.

With an eye on the upcoming U.S. presidential election and the possibility that Donald Trump, who opposes the climate agreement, would win, the Obama administration and UN officials worked feverishly to accelerate the member state ratification process necessary to allow the Paris Agreement to go into legal effect.  Patricia Espinosa, the UN’s climate chief, said it wouldn’t be “feasible” for Trump to change the terms of the Paris Agreement once it did go into effect. So it was a race against the clock.

President Obama presented his instrument of “acceptance” of the Paris Agreement to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon while attending the G-20 meeting in China last month. He did so alongside China’s President Xi Jinping, who presented his instrument of “ratification.” President Obama said that he and President Xi decided to “commit formally to joining the agreement ahead of schedule.”  By sleight of hand, President Obama sought to transform his “executive agreement,” now deposited as a treaty with the UN and listed as such in the United Nations’ Treaty Collection under the heading “Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General,” into a treaty without Senate approval.

The United Nations Office of Legal Affairs is complicit in this shell game. The chief of its Treaty Section told me that “what the United States calls an executive agreement we call a treaty.” He cited as a precedent an obscure treaty known as the Minamata Convention on Mercury, to which President Obama had also bound the United States through executive action without any consideration by the Senate.

Executive agreements are not binding on successor presidents, who can simply void them.  Obama knows this very well. He is not worried about Hillary Clinton, who is all in with inflicting a critical blow against the fossil fuel industry while giving away many more billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money in wealth redistribution to developing countries. However, he wants desperately to try and cut off Donald Trump, if he is elected as the next president, from taking such an executive action.  Thus, taking no chances, President Obama worked overtime to cement his “legacy” on climate change by imposing treaty obligations on the next president without having gone through the constitutional treaty legislative approval process pursuant to Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. His administration connived with the UN Secretariat to end run the Senate, an executive overreach that not even Mexico’s president dared to attempt. Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto submitted the Paris Agreement to Mexico’s Senate for approval before presenting Mexico’s instrument of ratification to the United Nations. Other democracies have followed their own constitutional processes for treaty approval, including involvement of their legislative bodies.  But not Barack Obama!

The United States Senate should convene at the earliest opportune time to consider the Paris Agreement as having been deemed submitted to it as a treaty, since it is branded as such by the United Nations. The Senate can then deliberate and formally disavow Obama’s action in depositing the Paris Agreement with the UN as a treaty if the Senate decides not to approve it with the requisite two-thirds vote. This is important not only because of the problems with the Paris Agreement itself, most notably the huge redistribution of wealth it imposes, taking from the United States and other developed countries and giving without any accountability to developing countries. It is also important for the Senate to act so that it sets a clear marker to deter future presidents from proceeding without regard to the Constitution’s separation of powers.

Categories: Executive agreements, Obama and climate change, U.S. Senate, United Nations
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Obama, criticizing Jewish settlements in Middle East, pushes Muslim settlements in US

October 6, 2016

Obama, criticizing Jewish settlements in Middle East, pushes Muslim settlements in US, American Thinker, Ed Straker, October 6, 2016

President Obama criticized Israel for constructing new settlements in what Israel calls Judea and Samaria and what the Palestinians call the West Bank.

In an uncommonly harsh statement, the State Department “strongly condemned” the move, asserting that it violated Israel’s pledge not to construct new settlements and ran counter to the long-term security interests Israel was seeking to protect. …

The new settlement, one of a string of housing complexes that threaten to bisect the West Bank, is designed to house settlers from a nearby illegal outpost, Amona, which an Israeli court has ordered demolished.

Settlements have poisoned the relationship between Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu from the earliest days of the administration. Mr. Obama demanded that Israel halt construction as a gesture to draw the Palestinians back to the bargaining table. Mr. Netanyahu complained that the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, frittered away most of the 10-month moratorium before sitting down to talk.

Jews have lived in Judea and Samaria for thousands of years.  In more recent times, the area became depopulated because of repeated pogroms, or massacres, of Jews by the Palestinians.  Now Jews are moving back to Judea.  They are not taking any homes from Palestinians; rather, they are setting up shop on empty hilltops, turning barren desert into homes, farms, schools, and businesses.

Obama sees that as a threat.  He isn’t bothered by Arabs living in Israel, but he wants territory he has unilaterally decided belongs to the Palestinians to be Judenrein, or free of Jewish people.

Curiously, Obama also has no problem with Muslim settlements in America.  In fact, he aggressively pushes them.  He has given green cards to over a million Muslims in his eight-year presidency.  Many of these Muslims live in insular communities one could call “settlements.”

The differences between these Muslim settlements in America and Jewish settlements in the Middle East are striking.  The Israelis are moving into and developing unoccupied land.  The Muslims coming here are taking homes that could be occupied by Americans.  The Israelis support themselves and do not take money from their Arab neighbors. Many of the Muslims who come here go on welfare and are supported by the American taxpayer.  And most importantly, the Israelis in settlements do not go out and kill people.  Nor do they impose their religion on others.  That is an important difference from some of the Muslim immigrants we take here.

And yet Obama has no qualms about expanding Muslim settlements in America.  As their numbers grow, we will start to have “no go” zones like Muslim enclaves in Paris and London.  Obama calls the Jewish homes a threat to peace, but it is some of the Muslims in America who are a threat to peace, as we have seen in mall shootings, workplace shootings, and bombings, just to take a few of the most recent examples.

The hypocrisy of Obama pushing this kind of “diversity” in America while declaring Judea Judenrein is inescapable.

 

Categories: Islamic immigration, Islamic refugees, Islamic settlements in America, Israel settlements, Obama and Islamic refugees, Obama and Israel
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

For Next UN Secretary-General, A Managerially Incompetent Socialist

October 6, 2016

For Next UN Secretary-General, A Managerially Incompetent Socialist, PJ Media, Claudia Rosett, October 5, 2016

unsecgenFILE – In this Friday, Dec. 18, 2015 file photo, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres speaks during a news conference at the European headquarters of the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland.

In the race for the next United Nations secretary-general, the Security Council has narrowed the field of candidates from a remaining 10 to precisely one: and the winner is, former Prime Minister of Portugal Antonio Guterres. It could have been worse — but not by much. Guterres brings to the job a record that suggests he is a perfect fit to head a UN that is prone to overreach, mismanagement, waste, fraud, abuse and government meddling in every aspect of life — provided we all want even more of the same.

That’s not what you’re reading in most press reports right now, where news of Guterres as top pick for the next UN secretary-general seems to consist largely of recycled public relations materials from the UN, related officials, and the Portuguese government. Guterres was roundly praised on Wednesday by Russia’s ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin (“we have a clear favorite”) and America’s Ambassador Samantha Power (who called Guterres “a candidate whose experience, vision and versatility across a range of areas proved compelling”).

So who is this man, Antonio Guterres, who so impressed the UN envoys of both Presidents Putin and Obama?

Along with a stint as prime minister of Portugal from 1995-2002, Guterres also served as president of the Socialist International, from 1999-2005, following a stint as vice-president of the organization from 1992-1999. As the Daily Caller reminds us, the Socialist International is “a global network of national socialist parties seeking to establish ‘democratic socialism’ around the world,” an endeavor that in the late 1980s included funding the communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua.

From 2005-2015, Guterres served as high commissioner of the UN agency for refugees (UNHCR), garnering experience which he and the Portuguese government advertised as one of his chief qualifications to head the UN Secretariat. In nominating Guterres for the post of UN secretary-general, Portugal’s Prime Minister Antonio Costa wrote that Guterres throughout his tenure as the UN’s high commissioner for refugees “showed exemplary understanding of and respect for the values of the United Nations,” ushering in all sorts of marvelous “reform and innovation.”

That sounds great, except the UN’s own auditors took a far less laudatory view of Guterres’s performance. This April the UN’s Office of Internal Oversight Services issued an audit report identifying a series of “critical” lapses by the UNHCR under Guterres’s management. That audit was obtained by Fox News editor-at-large George Russell, who published a story on June 7 headlined “UN refugee agency handed over hundreds of millions to partners without monitoring.”

Russell in his article, based on the UN internal audit, detailed a “saga of inaction, bureaucratic incoherence and apparent unconcern about the spending of huge amounts of cash at UNHCR,” and described the UNHCR mess as “the latest symptom of problems for the U.N. system as a whole.”

Overall, reported Russell, “over the last two years, as the global refugee crisis spiraled out of control, the United Nations’ refugee organization has handed over nearly a billion dollars to private organizations and national governments, much of it without verifying whether those partners had the expertise to buy the goods, or the means to detect fraud in the purchases.” While Russell did not get into details of where exactly this money went, it’s worth asking whether the UNCHR, which under Guterres was apparently in frequent violation of its own policies, might have ended up funding any of villains responsible for the floods of refugees (the havoc in Syria comes to mind).

Nor was this 2016 internal audit the only damning UN document. In 2012, Russell obtained a 2011 UN audit report critical of the UNHCR under Guterres, and published a story about that one under the headline: “United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees blasted for poor financial handling.” That UN document, reported Russell, cited the UNHCR “for sloppy bookkeeping, poor financial oversight, managerial disarray, and a lack of tools to judge how well it was doing its job of helping tens of millions of the world’s displaced people.”

Under the UN charter, the secretary-general serves as “chief administrative officer of the organization.” If that’s how Guterres managed — or mismanaged — a single UN agency while running it for more than a decade, is it likely he will do a better job as secretary-general?

For that matter, have any of the ambassadors now singing the praises of Guterres taken the time to glance at any of these UN audits? Did Ambassador Power before gushing about Guterres ever delve into the nitty-gritty of his “experience, vision and versatility”? Or is it only George Russell at Fox who takes the trouble to unearth and toil through the actual record?

As it is, following a formal vote in the Security Council on a resolution recommending Guterres for secretary-general, we can expect rubber-stamp approval perhaps as early as next week by the General Assembly. Guterres will take over at the beginning of 2017, when Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon’s second five-year term expires.

Then we get a longtime socialist with a record of managerial incompetence, heading a multi-billion dollar, diplomatically immune, opaque, globe-girdling organization funded with billions of other people’s money (America, which bankrolls roughly one-quarter of the UN system with your tax dollars, being the largest contributor). What could go wrong?

Categories: Antonio Guterres, UN Secretary General, UNHCR, United Nations
Tags: , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Pakistan: Christian girl kidnapped, raped because family refused to convert to Islam

October 6, 2016

Pakistan: Christian girl kidnapped, raped because family refused to convert to Islam, Jihad Watch, , October 6, 2016

(Please see also, No Where to Go: Pakistani Christians Refused Asylum. — DM)

According to a 2014 report by the NGO Movement of Solidarity and Peace, as many as 700 Christian girls in Pakistan are kidnapped and forced into Islamic marriages every year. Many times, the police fail to take action….

Such abuse is well known, ongoing and widespread against Christians and other infidels in Pakistan and other Islamic states, and there is no outcry. Similar behavior has now spread into Europe, with Muslim rape gangs rampant in the UK, and still, largely there is no outcry. Surveys and the evidence of jihad attacks show that hatred and violence are being promoted in all too many mainstream mosques in the U.S., Canada and throughout the West, with no outcry. The noble principles of human rights in the West are rapidly being surrendered in the face of the fabricated propaganda concept of “Islamophobia.”

pakistan

“Pakistani Christian Girl Kidnapped, Raped After Family Refused to Convert to Islam”, by Samuel Smith, Christian Post, October 4, 2016:

A Pakistani Christian family was tied up and beaten by a group of Muslims who stormed their home last month looking to force the family to convert to Islam. But when the family refused to renounce their faith, their youngest daughter was abducted, raped and has yet to return home.

The London-based charity British Pakistani Christian Association has come to the aid of the Masih family, a family of 10 Christians caught in the grips of bonded labor (modern day slavery) near the city of Kasur in Eastern Pakistan.

According to BPCA, the family lived in a small home made of mud and had been constantly pressured by local Muslims to convert to Islam, as they were the only family in the neighborhood who hadn’t embraced Islam.

On the night of Sept. 15, a group of six Muslim men and a Muslim woman stormed the family’s home with guns, sticks and metal rods and severely beat members of the Christian family.

The group of intruders hoped that the family’s pain and suffering would cause them to reconsider their prior refusals to convert to Islam. Despite the pain, the family again refused to deny Christ and convert to Islam.

After the family refused to convert, the Muslims grew enraged and tied up and blindfolded all but two of the family members.

As the family consists of six daughters and two sons, the Muslims dragged the family’s 17-year-old daughter, Jameela, and 20-year-old son, Arif, and threw them into the back of a van parked outside of the home.

Arif, who was eventually able to escape out an open door while no one was looking, told BPCA that he and Jameela were taken to an unknown building in an unknown location that he later figured out was a mansion of some sort.

Arif explained that when they arrived at the mansion, they were both tortured separately. Despite the torture, Arif again refused to convert to Islam. While he could hear the screams of his sister, one of the captors told Arif that other Muslim men were taking turns raping his sister and that all he had to do to save his her was embrace Islam. However, he again refused to renounce Christ.

As the sun rose the next morning, Arif took advantage of an opportunity to escape when his blindfold slipped and he noticed that the door was left open with no one around monitoring him.

It took hours for Arif to return home, as he had to walk most of the way before he caught a ride on a rickshaw.

Having been taken so far from home, Arif is not able to recall the location of the mansion that he and his sister were taken too. He also believes that his sister was taken to another location because he did not hear her screams before he escaped the mansion.

The family is now living in a safehouse sponsored by BPCA in Pakistan. That is the same safehouse that another Christian family trapped in bonded labor stayed at while BPCA worked to secure their emancipation.

“This family is deeply traumatized but safe now. We will now begin the arduous task of helping them rebuild their lives in an atmosphere of safety,” BPCA Chairman Wilson Chowdhry said in a statement. “However, the captured daughter Jameela may well never be found and her malicious kidnapping is causing great anguish and despair. [For] Muslim despots [to be able to] kidnap Christian girls with such impunity is a blight on Pakistan’s international reputation.”

According to a 2014 report by the NGO Movement of Solidarity and Peace, as many as 700 Christian girls in Pakistan are kidnapped and forced into Islamic marriages every year. Many times, the police fail to take action and claim that the child left home and entered into Islamic marriage of her own will.

After the attack and kidnapping, the Masih family first went to their Muslim landlord, who not only told them to talk to the police but ordered them to go back to work the day after. The family attempted to file charges with the police. However, local police in Kasur refused to register the family’s case.

The police department was even pressured by Pakistani Sen. Kamran Michael to register the police report, however, Deputy Superintendent Abdul Qayoom Gondal refuses to register the case.

BPCA has hired a lawyer to take on the Masih’s case. According to BPCA, the lawyer was able to reach an agreement for the police to do a preliminary investigation. Thanks to corroborating witness statements, it is likely that a First Information Report will eventually be filed.

According to an application for a FIR, the perpetrators involved in the beating and kidnapping are Ghulam Muhamad, Ilyas Muhamed, Irfan Muhamad, M. Boota, M. Ashraf, M. Haroon and Umraan Bibi, all of whom are relatives.

BPCA reports that the assault on the Christian family occurred after the mother, 50-year-old Mumtaz Masih, was recently harassed by Muslim women in the neighborhood who were again looking to convert her and her family to Islam.

Irritated by the fact that her family kept getting harassed, Mumtaz and the women got into a heated exchange in which Mumtaz allegedly insulted the Muslim women, which could have triggered the violent attacks.

BPCA has launched a petition calling on the Pakistani government to end “the mass abduction, rape and forced marriage of Christians and other minority women, through tougher laws and stronger policing protocol.”…….

Categories: Islam and Christianity, Pakistan
Tags: ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

‘S-300, S-400 air defenses in place’: Russian MoD warns US-led coalition not to strike Syrian army

October 6, 2016

‘S-300, S-400 air defenses in place’: Russian MoD warns US-led coalition not to strike Syrian army

Published time: 6 Oct, 2016 13:22 Edited time: 6 Oct, 2016 14:07

Source: ‘S-300, S-400 air defenses in place’: Russian MoD warns US-led coalition not to strike Syrian army — RT News

U.S. F-22 stealth fighter jets © Kim Hong-Ji / Reuters

Russia’s Defense Ministry has cautioned the US-led coalition of carrying out airstrikes on Syrian army positions, adding in Syria there are numerous S-300 and S-400 air defense systems up and running.

Russia currently has S-400 and S-300 air-defense systems deployed to protect its troops stationed at the Tartus naval supply base and the Khmeimim airbase. The radius of the weapons reach may be “a surprise” to all unidentified flying objects, Russian Defense Ministry spokesperson General Igor Konashenkov said.

Read more

© Kirill Kallinikov

Moscow delivers S-300 missile system to Syria for defense of Russian naval base

According to the Russian Defense Ministry, any airstrike or missile hitting targets in territory controlled by the Syrian government would put Russian personnel in danger.

The defense official said that members of the Russian Reconciliation Center in Syria are working “on the ground” delivering aid and communicating with a large number of communities in Syria.

“Therefore, any missile or air strikes on the territory controlled by the Syrian government will create a clear threat to Russian servicemen.”

“Russian air defense system crews are unlikely to have time to determine in a ‘straight line’ the exact flight paths of missiles and then who the warheads belong to. And all the illusions of amateurs about the existence of ‘invisible’ jets will face a disappointing reality,”  Konashenkov added.

Read more

© Abdalrhman Ismail

Covert strikes on Assad back on US table to prevent ‘fall of Aleppo’ – report

He also noted that Syria itself has S-200 as well as BUK systems, and their technical capabilities have been updated over the past year.

The Russian Defense Ministry’s statement came in response to what it called “leaks” in the Western media alleging that Washington is considering launching airstrikes against Syrian government forces.

“Of particular concern is information that the initiators of such provocations are representatives of the CIA and the Pentagon, who in September reported to the [US] President on the alleged controllability of ‘opposition’ fighters, but today are lobbying for ‘kinetic’ scenarios in Syria,” he said.

He cautioned Washington to conduct a “thorough calculation of the possible consequences of such plans.”

US-led coalition jets bombed positions of the Syrian government forces on September 17, resulting in the deaths of 83 servicemen. Washington said the airstrike was a mistake, however Damascus claimed the incident was a “blatant aggression.”

The relocation of the S-300 system in order to protect Russian ships and the naval base in Syria was confirmed by Russian defense officials on October 4. Konashenkov assured that the S-300 is a “purely defensive system and poses no threat.” Russia also has S-400 missile defense systems at Khmeimim base that were placed there after Turkey downed a Russian SU-24 jet in November of 2015.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Throwback Thursday: Hillary’s Work for Our Enemies at the OIC

October 6, 2016

Throwback Thursday: Hillary’s Work for Our Enemies at the OIC, Understanding the Threat, October 5, 2016

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is the largest voting bloc in the United Nations (UN), and is comprised of all Islamic States on the planet – 56 states plus Palestine which they consider an equal.

57 states.  Ring any bells?

The OIC is considered the “Collective Voice of the Muslim World.”

In 1993, the OIC officially served the Cairo Declaration to the UN.  It was approved by the Heads of State and Kings of the Islamic nations in the world.

The Cairo Declaration begins with:

“Recognizing the importance of issuing a Document on Human Rights in Islam that will serve as a guide for Member states in all aspects of life.”

The Cairo Declaration ends with:

ARTICLE 24:  All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.

ARTICLE 25:  The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.

At the Head of State and King level, the entire Muslim world under the OIC legally told the world that “Human Rights” in the Muslim world is defined by sharia (Islamic law).  Meaning:  killing those who leave Islam, homosexuals, and those who fail to convert or submit to Islam is all a part of the Islamic understanding of “human rights.”

The OIC “Ten Year Programme of Action” (2005) calls for governments of the world to Combat Islamophobia, which is hammer to implement the Islamic law of Slander (“To say anything about a Muslim he would dislike”).  Slander in Islam is a capital crime.

Specifically, paragraph VII “Combating Islamophobia” sub paragraph (3) reads:

“Endeavor to have the United Nations adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia, and call upon all States to enact laws to counter it,including deterrent punishments.” (emphasis added)

UN Resolution 1618, approved in March 2011, is a non-binding resolution which calls on governments to outlaw all speech that “constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” toward religion, on the rationale that such speech could provoke “religious hatred” in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution and Federal Code.

Who advocated on behalf of the OIC for silencing “Islamophobia?”  Mrs. Clinton.

Secretary of State Clinton and Secretary General of the OIC Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu

On July 15, 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking to the OIC in Istanbul, Turkey stated:  “I want to applaud the Organization of Islamic Conference and the European Union for helping pass Resolution 1618 at the Human Rights Council…So we are focused on promoting interfaith education and collaboration, enforcing anti-discrimination laws, protecting the rights of all people to worship as they choose, and to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.”

In December 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made the “Istanbul Process” a major initiative and partnered with the OIC to directly support UN Resolution 1618.

Hillary Clinton is, therefore, officially on record as supporting the implementation of sharia (Islamic Law) over the Constitution and U.S. Federal Code, and silencing all those who speak up about the dangers of Islam and sharia.

Categories: Hillary Clinton and Islamists, OIC, Sharia law
Tags: , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

No Where to Go: Pakistani Christians Refused Asylum

October 6, 2016

No Where to Go: Pakistani Christians Refused Asylum, Clarion Project, Kaleem Dean, October 6, 2016

thailand-police-getty-640Police in Thailand (Photo: © Getty Images)

A Pakistani Christian pastor forced to flee to Thailand was denied asylum, leaving him with nowhere to turn.

After four years of struggling with the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) to prove his case was genuine, Baber Masih said of his plight and that of his wife and three children, “If we return to our country and get arrested due to blasphemy, we are afraid that everything that happens to people who get arrested under blasphemy laws would happen to us. The Muslim extremists of Pakistan could imprison us, kill or even burn us alive.”

Over the last number of months, the UNHRC turned away Pakistani Christians seeking asylum in Thailand. In the last two months alone, the files of more than 20 Christian families were closed, said Baber.

Once their files are closed, the UNHCR office informs the Thai Immigration about their status. Many are then arrested and put behind the bars in deplorable conditions, a fate of which Baber and his family are living in fear.

In addition, Baber reports the seeming arbitrariness of the judgments relating that another Christian was given refugee status whereas Baber’s plea was not considered to be true.

The UNHCR-Thailand uses the British Home Office guidelines to assess Pakistani Christian asylum seekers’ applications in Thailand. An article published by the Church Times notes, “The guidance currently reflects a tribunal ruling that Christians in Pakistan suffer discrimination, but this is not sufficient to amount to a real risk of persecution.”  It also states the Pakistani government is “willing and able to provide protection against such attacks, and internal relocation is a viable option.”

However, this assessment is contradicted by the British Foreign Office’s own guidelines, which state there is “not much protection of religious minorities from the government.”

Lord Alton of Liverpool presented his report expressing his deep concern over the treatment the UNHCR gives to Pakistani Christians. In his report, he stated, “The UK’s Home Office guidance on Pakistani Christians and Christian converts is being used to de-prioritize and de-legitimize Christian asylum-seekers’ applications — even if returning these individuals to Pakistan will leave them at a significant and real risk of attack, torture, or being killed.”

Baber further charges that the UNHRC has no parameters to investigate and gauge the depth of the seriousness of threats to Christian individuals and families in Pakistan.  Relating his story, Baber said, “On September 16, 2012, about 8 p.m., Muslim clerics/extremists attacked our home. They entered forcefully and started beating us with rods and clubs and abused us, calling us kafir(infidels) and churry (sweepers) and many other bad words.

“It seemed they wanted to burn us alive as they were shouting that they were going to do so.  We thank God that many people gathered quickly and rushed to our home because our women and children had locked themselves in a room and were crying and weeping very loudly as they heard us being beaten. Knowing the situation we decided to leave our homeland.

“We applied for asylum with UNHCR and received registrations in December of 2012. We were interviewed in the following year, and the year after our application was refused. We submitted an appeal to the UNHCR through the asylum access in 2014, but now after two years of struggle, the UNHCR has refused our case, closing our file permanently.”

The size of the minority population in Pakistan has decreased, from 25 percent in 1947 to a mere 3% today. The discriminatory laws against ethnic minorities have made their lives almost impossible. For example, since 1974, when Ahmadi Muslims were declared a “minority” in Pakistan, they have been relentlessly persecuted.

Their exodus from Pakistan continues unabated. Similarly, Hindus, Christians and Sikhas never miss an opportunity to flee from Pakistan.

Yet, the world seems to have closed its doors to Pakistani Christians, as Baber Masih and others like him have discovered. Even in America, the latest statistics show that of the 10,801 Syrian refugees accepted in fiscal 2016, only 56 are Christians, a mere 0.5 percent.

While the Islamic State commits genocide against Christians and other minorities, other countries, like Pakistan, wage an unremitting war of attrition against their minority populations. It is imperative that the world wakes up to this slow genocide from within.

Categories: Christian refugees, Islamic terror groups, Non-Muslim refugees, Pakistan, Thailand, UNHCR
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Obama Admin Hiding Docs Signed With Iranian Intel Officials

October 6, 2016

Obama Admin Hiding Secret Hostage Docs Signed With Iranian Intel Officials Obama admin sequesters key docs relating to secret deals.

BY:
October 5, 2016 4:10 pm

Source: Obama Admin Hiding Docs Signed With Iranian Intel Officials

Key documents relating to the Obama administration’s secret negotiations with Iran, including a $1.7 billion cash payment, are being stored at a highly secure site on Capitol Hill, preventing the public and many in Congress from accessing them, according to multiple sources who described the situation to the Washington Free Beacon.

The documents are not technically classified but are being kept in a “secure reading space” where the majority of congressional officials cannot access them. Those cleared are forced to relinquish their cellular devices and are barred from taking notes, undermining the ability of staffers to brief their lawmakers on the contents, according to the sources.

Sources further disclosed that joint U.S.-Iranian signatures across the three documents add up to a package deal between Washington and Iran’s Intelligence Ministry, the country’s internal spy agency. Sources familiar with a closed-door January briefing by senior Obama administration officials told the Free Beacon they were informed the United States negotiated with “the Iranian intelligence apparatus.”

The terms of the arrangement—which was signed by Special Presidential Envoy Brett McGurk—had Iran releasing several U.S. hostages and obligated Washington to pay Tehran $1.7 billion in cash, removed international sanctions on a key financial node of Iran’s ballistic missile program, and dropped charges against 21 Iranian operatives linked to terrorism.

“There are three of them [agreements], and one specifically relates to the $1.7 billion [payment] and is a commitment of the U.S. to make arrangements to transfer the money,” said one congressional official familiar with the agreements.

A second document “lays out the commitments regarding Iranians that the U.S. was going to pardon, as well as the release of [imprisoned] Americans,” the source explained.

A third document “relates to assurances” the United States would allow international sanctions to be dropped on Iran’s Bank Sepah, a bank the Treasury Department described in 2007 as the “linchpin of Iran’s missile procurement.”

Multiple sources told the Free Beacon all three documents are part of one package deal. Each document was initially dated Jan. 16, but that was subsequently “crossed out and the 17th was scribbled in,” according one congressional source who spoke to the Free Beacon.

“They were all signed at the same time and ties it to the hostage release,” the source said. It further debunks claims made for months by the Obama administration that the negotiations over each concession were kept separate.

A second senior congressional source familiar with the contents of these secret documents told the Free Beacon that they provide proof that each of these three concessions to Iran was bound up in the hostage release.

“If it looks like ransom and sounds like ransom, it’s probably ransom,” the source said. “Why else would Brett McGurk deal with his Iranian counterparts and sign agreements on all these seemingly unrelated issues on the same day and in the same place if they weren’t connected?”

A third senior congressional official told the Free Beacon that officials were never notified by the Obama administration that these documents were partially being made available. The source speculated the administration did this to avoid rigorous oversight of its diplomacy with Iran.

“The State Department knows that its Iran policy is embarrassing and often semi-illegal, so it hides documents related to Iran,” the official said. “State delays publication, refuses to answer questions, and puts extra restrictions preventing the Hill from even accessing the materials.”

The handling of these documents is similar to the Iran deal itself, which the Free Beacon first disclosed could only be viewed by congressional officials in a highly classified manner.

The Free Beacon disclosed on Tuesday that the administration misled journalists and lawmakers for more than nine months about a secret agreement lifting international sanctions on Bank Sepah.

A State Department official declined to provide the Free Beacon with the name and affiliation of the Iranian official or officials who took part in negotiations with McGurk. The State Department also would not provide information about the process by which Congress can view these documents.

“As part of the JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action] negotiations, the United States made the determination that it would remove Bank Sepah from our Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) on Implementation Day,” the State Department official told the Free Beacon.

“In general, we are committed to ensuring that Congress has documents and information it may need to conduct effective oversight, and have transmitted these in a fashion that both protects sensitive information while giving all Members the ability to review them,” the official said.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment