Archive for October 2016

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Soros Money, Muslim Advocates Leader, Helped Weaken Homeland Security Policies

October 7, 2016

Soros Money, Muslim Advocates Leader, Helped Weaken Homeland Security Policies, Investigative Project on Terrorism, John Rossomando, October 7, 2016

(Please see also, Pentagon still unsure of whether to link Islam with violent jihad. — DM)

1855

A Muslim legal group, girded with $1.8 million in grant money from George Soros’s Open Society Foundations (OSF), has helped influence major policy changes in the war on terror, including the Department of Homeland Security’s screening of individuals with suspected terror ties and the FBI’s training program for its agents working in counterterrorism.

Internal records, made public by the hacking group DC Leaks, show OSF spent $40 million between 2008 and 2010 on programs aimed at weakening U.S. counterterrorism policy.

Muslim Advocates’ Executive Director Farhana Khera played a key role in shaping the foundations’ spending. Khera co-authored a 2007 memo that “informed” the foundations’ U.S. Programs Board’s decision to create the National Security and Human Rights Campaign (NSHRC), a Sept. 14, 2010 OSF document discussing the program’s reauthorization, shows.

The NSHRC’s goals included:

  • Closing Guantanamo Bay, eliminating torture and methods such as the extraordinary rendition of prisoners, and ending the use of secret prisons;
  • Ending warrantless and “unchecked” surveillance;
  • Ensuring that anti-terrorism laws and law enforcement activities do not target freedom of speech, association or religious expression;
  • Reducing ethnic and religious profiling of people of Muslim, Arab or South Asian extraction;
  • Decreasing secrecy and increasing oversight of executive actions, and expose U.S. government or private individuals who abuse or violate the law.

Some of these policies, such as closing Guantanamo and ending enhanced interrogation techniques, already were also advocated by Obama administration. OSFclaimed its work laid the groundwork for implementing those policies. The Edward Snowden leaks cast light on the depth of the government’s warrantless surveillance activity. The other goals are more difficult to assess.

Muslim Advocates was founded in 2005 as an offshoot of the National Association of Muslim Lawyers. It often criticizes U.S. counterterrorism strategies that use sting operations and informants as discriminatory.

Papers released by the anonymous hacker group DC Leaks show that OSF budgeted $21 million for the NSHRC from 2008-2010. OSF spent an additional $1.5 million in 2010. The NSHRC also received a matching $20 million contribution from Atlantic Philanthropies, a private foundation established in 1982 by Irish-American Chuck Feeney billionaire businessman.

OSF made 105 grants totaling $20,052, 784 to 63 organizations under the NSHRC program. An Investigative Project on Terrorism tally shows Muslim Advocates received at least $1.84 million in OSF grants between 2008 and 2015.

A funders’ roundtable created by OSF in 2008 helped coordinate the grant making among several left-leaning foundations, ” in order to “dismantle the flawed ‘war on terror’ paradigm on which national security policy is now based.” At least “two dozen” foundations participated in the roundtable’s strategy sessions as of the end of 2008.

Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, called the Soros foundations’ $40 million program both hypocritical and ironic. He noted that the2011 OSF-funded Center for American Progress report “Fear, Inc.” complained thatseven conservative foundations donated $42.6 million to so-called “Islamophobia think tanks between 2001 and 2009.” The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other major Islamist groups routinely use the $42.6 million funding number to portray their opponents as being pawns of dark forces.

“It’s amazing that one foundation donated an amount that CAIR and [Muslim] Advocates say is the huge sum of money that funds the entire anti-jihad campaign,” Jasser said. “… That wasn’t from one foundation. That was an addition of [the money given to] everybody that they threw under the bus.”

By contrast, OSF and Atlantic Philanthropies spent $41.5 million in just three years. OSF dedicated another $26 million to the NSHRC program from 2011-2014.

OSF additionally funded a study by the New America Foundation equating the terror threat posed right-wing extremists with al-Qaida. An Oct. 17, 2011 memo discussing NSHRC grants notes that New America received $250,000, partly to write two reports. The first aimed at creating a “‘safe space’ in which Muslims in America feel free to hold controversial political dialogues, organize without fear of unwarranted government surveillance.” The second aimed to “correct mistaken public beliefs that Al-Qaeda’s brand of terrorism is unique to Islam and that most terrorists are Muslim.”

The paper promised “to show how adherents of each extremist ideology use different language to justify very similar political means and goals. By demonstrating parallels among militant groups, this paper will aim to separate politically focused terrorism from the religion of Islam.”

Arguments from this report continue to help frame how Democrats and their allies talk about the jihadist threat. New America’s statistics and arguments recently came up in a House hearing about the threat from homegrown Islamic terrorists.

“According to the New America Foundation, there have been more incidents of right-wing extremist attacks in the United States than violent jihadist attacks since 9/11. I’m not minimizing jihadist attacks. In that light, can you explain what your office plans to do with respect to domestic right-wing extremism?” Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., askedDepartment of Homeland Security Office of Community Partnerships Director George Selim during a House subcommittee hearing last month.

New America’s effort to conflate right-wing extremists with al-Qaida glossed over a major difference – namely al-Qaida’s reliance on mass casualty attacks and suicide bombings.

New America’s latest data shows that jihadists have killed more people since 9/11 than right-wing extremists.

“What you’ve uncovered is the fact … that the Soros foundation works to obfuscate on national security,” Jasser said. “Muslim Advocates clearly is a prime example of the sickness in Washington related to dealing with the central reforms necessary to make within the House of Islam.

“You’ll see that the Soros foundation is spending money on organizations that deny the very principles they are defenders of, which are feminism, gay rights, individual rights. Muslim Advocates’ entire bandwidth is spent on attacking the government and blocking any efforts at counterterrorism.”

Muslim Advocates also opposes discussion on reform within the Muslim community and supports those who have theocratic tendencies, Jasser said.

“You have evidence here that the Soros foundation is part and parcel of the reason for the suffocation of moderation voices – reformist voices – in Islam,” Jasser said. “Muslim Advocates really ought to change their name to Islamist Advocates, and what the Soros foundation really is doing is just advocating for Islamists.”

OSF also contributed $150,000 in 2011 and $185,000 in 2012 to a donor advised fund run by Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors. It used this money to pay Hattaway Communications, a consulting firm run by former Hillary Clinton adviser Doug Hattaway, to develop a messaging strategy for Muslim Advocates and similar organizations. Hattaway’s message strategy painted Muslims as victims of American national security policies.

Khera used Hattaway’s strategy to paint the New York Police Department’s mosque surveillance strategy as “discriminatory.”

1856-1

“Their only ‘crime’ is that they are Muslim in America,” Khera wrote in a June 6, 2012 op-ed posted on CNN.com.

OSF funded groups, including Muslim Advocates, the ACLU, and the Center for Constitutional Rights, filed lawsuits challenging the NYPD’s surveillance program as unconstitutional. Police Commissioner William Bratton ended the policy in 2014.

The NYPD monitored almost all aspects of Muslim life ranging from mosques and student associations, to halal butcher shops and restaurants to private citizens.  A federal district court dismissed the suit, but the Third Circuit Court of Appeals revived it in October 2015. New York settled the lawsuit in January, placing the NYPD under supervision of an independent observer appointed by City Hall.

Downplaying Radicalization and the Jihadist Threat

OSF accused conservative opponents of “borrowing liberally from Joe McCarthy’s guilt by association tactics.” It complained in a Sept. 14, 2010 memo to its U.S. Programs Board that the “homegrown terrorism narrative” resulted in “discriminatory” targeting of Muslims by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the FBI.

Khera often expresses similar sentiments. She accused the FBI of engaging in “entrapment operations” to target “innocent” Muslims after former Attorney General Eric Holder called sting operations an “essential law enforcement tool in uncovering and preventing terror attacks.”

Khera likewise characterized law enforcement training materials discussing the Islamic extremist ideology as “bigoted, false, and inflammatory” in her June 28 testimony before a Senate Judiciary  Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights, Federal Courts.

She and her organization played a central role in late 2011 when Muslim groups called on the Obama administration to purge FBI training materials that they deemed offensive. FBI counterterrorism training materials about Islam contained “woefully misinformed statements about Islam and bigoted stereotypes about Muslims,” she complained in a Sept. 15, 2011 letter. She objected to describing zakat – the almsgiving tax mandate on all Muslims – as a “funding mechanism for combat.”

Yet numerous Muslim commentators describe zakat as a funding mechanism for jihad. A footnote for Surah 9:60 found in “The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an,” says that zakat can be used to help “those who are struggling and striving in Allah’s Cause by teaching or fighting or in duties assigned to them by the righteous Imam, who are thus unable to earn their ordinary living.”

The Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America issued a 2011 fatwa saying zakat could be used to “support legitimate Jihad activities.”

Following Khera’s letter, then-White House counterterrorism advisor John Brennan announced a review of “CVE-related instruction across all levels of government.” This review resulted in a purge of 700 pages of material from 300 presentations. Thisincluded PowerPoints and articles describing jihad as “holy war” and portraying the Muslim Brotherhood as group bent on world domination.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s bylaws describe these ultimate ambitions and imply the need for violence: “The Islamic nation must be fully prepared to fight the tyrants and the enemies of Allah as a prelude to establishing an Islamic state.”

Khera’s influence with the Obama administration

Khera enjoys close connections with the Obama White House. Visitor logs show that Khera went to the White House at least 11 times.

Khera played a central role persuading the Obama administration to purge Department of Homeland Security records related to individuals and groups with terror ties, former Customs and Border Patrol (CPB) Agent Phil Haney told the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

His superiors ordered him to “modify” 820 CPB TECS records about the Muslim Brotherhood network in America, Haney said. Irrefutable evidence from the 2008 Holy Land Foundation (HLF) Hamas financing trial proved that many of these groups and individuals assisted Hamas, Haney said.

The HLF trial substantiated deep connections between American Islamist groups such as the Islamic Society of North America, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and a Hamas-support network created by the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States.

A 2009 OSF funding document claims credit for helping persuade then-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to order a review of border screening procedures. It also reveals that Muslim Advocates worked with “DHS staff to develop a revised border policy.”

The Muslim Advocates’ report recommended the “review and reform of … [Customs and Border Patrol policies and practices that target Muslim, Arab and South Asian Americans for their First Amendment protected activities, beliefs and associations; and … law enforcement and intelligence activities that impose disparate impacts on Muslim, Arab and South Asian communities.” It also asked DHS to prevent CPB agents from probing about political beliefs, religious practices, and contributions to “lawful” charitable organizations.

Muslim Advocates claimed a pivotal role in getting the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to reverse a new 2010 policy enhancing the screening on travelers from 14 countries, many of them predominately Muslim. The rule was proposed in the wake of the attempt by underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to blow up a Detroit-bound plane weeks earlier.

Muslim Advocates and several OSF grantees met with Napolitano and other top DHS officials, and the policy was canceled three months later. Muslim Advocates claimedthat the Obama administration “made special mention” of its role in reversing the TSA policy.

“This broke into the open with the great purge of 2011 and 2012,” Haney said, recalling Brennan’s letter to Khera announcing that materials she complained about would be removed.

The purge accompanied a practice of meeting with Islamist groups as community partners, Haney said.

In addition to the purge of training material, documents related to people and groups with terrorism ties such as Canadian Muslim Brotherhood leader Jamal Badawi and the Pakistan-based Tablighi Jamaat movement also disappeared from CPB records. (Tablighi Jamaat often serves as a de facto recruiting conduit for groups such as al-Qaida and the Taliban.)

Investigators might have had a better chance of thwarting the San Bernardino and the June Orlando shootings had those Tablighi Jamaat records remained available, Haney said, because the shooters’ respective mosques appeared in the deleted 2012 Tablighi Jamaat case report.

The Obama administration’s “absolute refusal to acknowledge that individuals who are affiliated with networks operating here in the United States, and their deliberate deletion of any evidentiary pieces of information in the system, has made us blind and handcuffed,” Haney said. “The proof of it is San Bernardino and Orlando.

“They obliterated the entire [Tablighi Jamaat] case as if it never existed.”

Haney’s claims have met with some skepticism. Haney stands by his claims and says critics “made a lot of factual errors.”

Still, Muslim Advocates’ success reversing the TSA policy was among the accomplishments showing that it “has proved itself to be an effective advocate on the national stage,” an April 25, 2011 OSF document said. It recommended renewing a $440,000 grant to “support the core operating costs of Muslim Advocates.”

In doing so, the Soros-funded OSF weakened U.S. national security and potentially left it vulnerable to the jihadi attacks we have been seeing in the homeland since the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing.

Categories: Countering violent extremism, Department of Homeland Security, George Soros, Islamic reformation, Islamist organizations, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Law enforcement, Obama and Islam
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Pentagon still unsure of whether to link Islam with violent jihad

October 7, 2016

Pentagon still unsure of whether to link Islam with violent jihad, Jihad Watch, , October 7, 2016

(Round and round the discussion goes and where will stop everyone knows. However, even if the question is answered factually rather than ideologically in the Puzzle Palace, Obama won’t agree; as long as he — in person or via Hillary — is the president, his ideology will prevail. — DM

Islamic jihadists routinely link Islam with violent jihad. In all their communiques and all their appeals for support, and in all their attempts to recruit peaceful Muslims, they invoke the Qur’an and Muhammad. The fact that this is controversial and still being discussed fifteen years after 9/11 is an indication of how deep the denial, and how serious the crisis, is in Washington.

pentagon

“Pentagon still unsure whether to link Islam & violent Jihad,” by Hillel Fendel, Israel National News, October 7, 2016 (thanks to David):

Staffers in various departments in the Pentagon (the U.S. Defense Department) are busy preparing a document known as the National Military Strategy – but have not yet come to an agreement on at least one critical point regarding the worldwide terror threat.

The biennial document, intended for senior U.S. military commanders around the world, sets out big picture strategy guidance in light of the myriad threats they may face in the line of duty. This is the first one prepared under the guidance of Gen. Joseph Dunford, who took office as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff exactly a year ago.

The debate taking place at present concerns whether or not to clearly specify the strong connection between extremist Islam and terrorism.

Staffers of the Special Operations Command (SoCom) in the Pentagon believe that the report must note that Salafi jihadism is the branch of Sunni Islam that is responsible for most global terrorism in the world today. Salafi jihadism is the ideology shared by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda.

“Pretending there is no relationship between the violent jihadists and Islam isn’t going to win,” a source knowledgeable about the National Military Strategy told The Washington Times. “We’re completely ignoring the war of ideas. We’re still in denial. We’re pretending the enemy doesn’t exist.”

 The source said that the issue cannot be viewed only in terms of those who believe in active violence: “It’s a much bigger problem, because it’s not just the violent jihadists; it’s the non-violent jihadists who support them.”

SoCom is the branch of the military charged with hunting down and killing terrorists. Countering its opinion, Gen. Dunford’s staff is reportedly not convinced that the term “Salafi jihadism” should be included in the report.…

Categories: Department of Defense, Islamist terror attacks, Obama and Islamic terrorism
Tags: , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Analysis/Opinion: If this is peace, why fear war?

October 7, 2016

Analysis/Opinion: If this is peace, why fear war? Washington Times, Wesley Pruden, October 6, 2016

nobelobamaIn this Dec. 10, 2009, file photo, President and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Barack Obama poses with his medal and diploma at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony at City Hall in Oslo. (AP Photo/John McConnico, File)

Whether manufacturing peace or disarming Islamic terror, Barack Obama and his protege have demonstrated incompetence all but unique in the history of the American presidency. And Hillary Clinton wants America to reward the incompetence with four more years.

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

Barack Obama will soon be gone, banished to a smaller house down the street from the mosque, and peace, alas, will not be upon him. The anti-war president leaves behind a world with more war than it had when he first moved into the White House.

Mr. Obama had hardly got his socks-and-underwear drawer organized when he got a call from Oslo that he had won the Nobel Peace Prize. He told his speechwriters to write a speech recognizing, in a nice way, that the award was the work of giddy European intellectuals who had reduced the Nobel Prize to something like one of those offers of a weekend in Florida to anyone who would sit still for a pitch for condominium shares.

Nobody thought the award had much to do with peace, and everyone agreed that Mr. Obama certainly didn’t deserve the prize, cheapened as it had become by politics. Nearly eight years later the president has become something of a maker of war, not peace, which is the usual lot of any man or woman elected, like it or not, leader of the world.

“I don’t think he would have been in the speculation of the Nobel committee now, in 2016, even if he had not already won [before],” Kristian Berg Harpviken, director of the Peace Research Institute of Oslo and a close watcher of the machinations of the Nobel committee, tells The Associated Press. “Obama has been stuck in the old paradigm,” he says.

Indeed, it’s those naughty old paradigms that eventually make every president miserable. Mr. Obama consoled himself by blaming everything on George W. Bush until reality overtook him.

The world is a far more dangerous place now. Radical Islamic terrorism, which the president still dares not call by its name, has become the new normal everywhere, gruesome death of innocents in the name of a prophet dead for centuries. The world hasn’t measured so many deaths in battle since the end of the Vietnam War, and refugees from war and terrorism have washed over Europe in numbers to remake the map, and threaten now to overwhelm the culture in America. If, in the words of the Statler Brothers, “life gets complicated when you get past 18,” life gets impossible for presidents once they get to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, beware.

Mr. Obama has still not learned the lesson taught by the poet Bobby Burns, to see himself as others see him, a president engaged in more wars big and small than his predecessor. He should apologize to George W. He has pulled more than 100,000 soldiers out of Iraq, enabling the success of ISIS in taking vast territory for its so-called Islamic State, and now he has to begin the painful and embarrassing task of sending some of them back. He abhors conventional war, but dispatches drones to kill the guilty and innocent alike.

He assisted in the invention of a crisis over “climate change,” as if the climate hasn’t been changing since the first thunderstorm ruined Eve’s garden party in Eden. He rewarded Fidel Castro and the old men of the Cuban revolution, eager for the comforts of capitalism as they lie dying, but he is unable to do anything but draw imaginary red lines in the sand, like a child with his coloring book, to prevent the destruction of the Syrians.

But the president’s peacemaking legacy will be the sweetheart deal he made with the mullahs in Iran, preserving their dream of an Islamic bomb, which the mullahs promise to use to make a second Holocaust of Israel. Mr. Obama said in 2012 that he would give the mullahs an opportunity to “take the diplomatic route and end their nuclear program” or face an American president with lots of options. The world learned that the options were a stream of concessions to keep the Iranian nuclear-weapons program alive and on the way to the bomb.

Hillary Clinton goes along with the president’s cynical assurance that against emerging evidence he has halted the development of the Iranian bomb. We saw the Democratic celebration of the myth in this week’s debate between Tim Kaine and Mike Pence.

Mr. Kaine, trying to reassure with his Howdy-Doody smile and happy talk, said three times that the Iranian nuclear-weapons program had been “stopped” or “capped.” He divided the “credit” between Mr. Obama and his negotiating skill and Hillary’s performance as secretary of State.

Whether manufacturing peace or disarming Islamic terror, Barack Obama and his protege have demonstrated incompetence all but unique in the history of the American presidency. And Hillary Clinton wants America to reward the incompetence with four more years.

Categories: Obama and peace
Tags:

Comments: Be the first to comment

Hillary and ‘Undocumented’ Aliens

October 7, 2016

Hillary and ‘Undocumented’ Aliens, Front Page Magazine, Michael Cutler, October 6, 2016

fc

The excuse “my dog ate my homework” supposedly explains why a student failed to bring a homework assignment to class, but it is an excuse that no one believes.  It is not limited students who fail to do their homework, but has come to be the cliché excuse for anyone not completing an assignment who provides a lame excuse that everyone knows is a lie.

Politicians, pollsters and pundits who are advocates for open borders and the creation of immigration anarchy seek to minimize the true significance of aliens entering the United States without inspection and, of critical importance in this particularly perilous era, without vetting.

Their strategy to deceive Americans is to employ the equivalent excuse of the dog eating homework by saying that these illegal aliens entered the United States “without documentation,” thus shifting attention from the fact that millions of aliens entered the United States stealthily, without inspection.

This is the strategy of Hillary Clinton and her immigration anarchy accomplices.

The inspections process is conducted at America’s 325 ports of entry located along the northern and southern borders of the United States, at seaports that lie along our nation’s 95,000 miles of coastline and at international airports by the arm of DHS known as CBP (Customs and Border Protection), and is supposed to prevent the entry of aliens who pose a threat to the safety of America and Americans.

When a student fails to turn in an assignment his/her teacher will normally press that errant student about why the homework really was not completed, demonstrating the teacher’s dissatisfaction with the excuse.

Yet the obvious question that is never asked about illegal aliens who enter the United States without inspection who claim to be “undocumented” is, “What really happened to their documents?”  Did they ever have a passport or other identity documents?  Did they somehow lose them on their way to the United States?  Did they destroy them before running our borders because they know that their names on those passports would show up on terror watch lists or on lists of international fugitives?

Before we go any further, it is vital to understand that the documents we are talking about are not library cards or credit cards.  These are cards that, under law, are supposed to provide reliable evidence about the true identity of the bearer.  This is a matter of national security.

In point of fact, Title 8 U.S. Code § 1101 – Definitions is a part of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and provides essential definitions relating to the enforcement and administration of our nation’s immigration laws.  Here is how this section of the INS defines passport:

(30)  The term “passport” means any travel document issued by competent authority showing the bearer’s origin, identity, and nationality if any, which is valid for the admission of the bearer into a foreign country.

“Undocumented aliens” entered Mexico before they ran the U.S./Mexican border.  How on earth did they manage to enter Mexico?  If they flew to Mexico they likely had their passports upon entry and subsequently destroyed them. Consider the national security crisis this creates for the United States.

I recently wrote an article that disclosed how Mr. Obama is now “addressing” this clear national security threat, “Beyond Belief: Obama Seeks Illegal Immigration Assistance Of Latin American Countries As Aliens Flood Into The U.S.: The wolves helping to guard the hen house?”

Increasingly the Border Patrol has been intercepting aliens from countries other than Mexico and, appropriately, referring to them as OTMs (Other Than Mexico).

Some of these aliens are not only not citizens of Mexico, but are not even citizens of Latin American countries. Some, in fact, are citizens of “Special Interest Countries.”  These are countries that are involved with terrorism.

That these aliens managed to travel half-way across the globe and, upon arrival in the United States, are found to have no passports or other authentic identity documents should set off alarm bells.

Hillary Clinton’s “solution,” however, is to provide them with lawful status and even pathways to citizenship within 100 days of becoming president.

The use of passports and identity documents and multiple failures of the immigration system were the focus of considerable attention by the 9/11 Commission.

The preface of the official report, “9/11 and  Terrorist Travel: Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” includes this paragraph:

The story begins with “A Factual Overview of the September 11 Border Story.” This introduction summarizes many of the key facts of the hijackers’ entry into the United States. In it, we endeavor to dispel the myth that their entry into the United States was “clean and legal.” It was not. Three hijackers carried passports with indicators of Islamic extremism linked to al Qaeda; two others carried passports manipulated in a fraudulent manner. It is likely that several more hijackers carried passports with similar fraudulent manipulation. Two hijackers lied on their visa applications. Once in the United States, two hijackers violated the terms of their visas. One overstayed his visa. And all but one obtained some form of state identification. We know that six of the hijackers used these state issued identifications to check in for their flights on September 11. Three of them were fraudulently obtained.

Page 46 and 47 of this report noted:

By analyzing information available at the time, we identified numerous entry and embedding tactics associated with these earlier attacks in the United States. 

The World Trade Center Bombing, February 1993. Three terrorists who were involved with the first World Trade Center bombing reportedly traveled on Saudi passports containing an indicator of possible terrorist affiliation. Three of the 9/11 hijackers also had passports containing this same possible indicator of terrorist affiliation.5

In addition, Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the attack, and Ahmad Ajaj, who was able to direct aspects of the attack despite being in prison for using an altered passport, traveled under aliases using fraudulent documents. The two of them were found to possess five passports as well as numerous documents supporting their aliases: a Saudi passport showing signs of alteration, an Iraqi passport bought from a Pakistani official, a photo-substituted Swedish passport, a photo-substituted British passport, a Jordanian passport, identification cards, bank records, education records, and medical records.6

“Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.” Mohammed Salameh, who rented the truck used in the bombing, overstayed his tourist visa. He then applied for permanent residency under the agricultural workers program, but was rejected. Eyad Mahmoud Ismail, who drove the van containing the bomb, took English-language classes at Wichita State University in Kansas on a student visa; after he dropped out, he remained in the United States out of status.

Page 61 contained this passage:

Exploring the Link between Human Smugglers and Terrorists 

In July 2001, the CIA warned of a possible link between human smugglers and terrorist groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad.149   Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that since 1999 human smugglers have facilitated the travel of terrorists associated with more than a dozen extremist groups.150  With their global reach and connections to fraudulent document vendors and corrupt government officials, human smugglers clearly have the “credentials” necessary to aid terrorist travel. 

Back when I was a Special Agent of the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) we found that aliens who had arrived at John F. Kennedy International Airport, supposedly with no passports, immediately claimed “Political Asylum.”  It was discovered that they had destroyed their passports in the bathrooms on the airliners on which they flew to the United States.

All too often such arriving aliens were given appointments to show up for hearings at the immigration offices and they simply disappeared once they left the airport.  The solution to this was not costly or difficult.  Their passports should have been placed in a locked box upon boarding the airliners that would be placed in the cockpit or other secured place on the aircraft.

Yet, to my knowledge, this simple measure was never considered nor implemented.

They certainly shouldn’t have been released on their own recognizance in the United States.

There are often simple and inexpensive solutions to the problems relating to the immigration crisis.  However, it is clear that all too many of our politicians, irrespective of party affiliation, aren’t interested in solving these problems, but they have been bought and paid for by the immigration anarchists lead by such organizations as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Documenting the “undocumented” is a prescription for a disaster.

As the 15th anniversary of the attacks of 9/11 approached, I wrote an article about the vulnerabilities that the Obama administration abjectly refuses to address.  My article was, “Reflections on 9/11’s Vulnerabilities: The failures that proved key factors in the attacks — and how Obama has exacerbated them.”

My dad used to say that nothing is so good it couldn’t be better or be so bad it couldn’t get worse.  I am convinced that somehow Ms. Clinton would find a way to make the immigration crisis worse — much worse.

Categories: Hillary Clinton and immigration, Uncontrolled immigration, Undocumented immigrants
Tags: , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Accused Hezbollah Operative Slated to Speak In Washington, D.C.

October 7, 2016

Accused Hezbollah Operative Slated to Speak In Washington, D.C., Washington Free Beacon, , October 6, 2016

Azmi Bishara, an Israeli Arab and former lawmaker, speaks with journalists as he arrives to attend the emergency Arab leaders summit on Gaza in Doha, Qatar, Friday, Jan. 16, 2009. (AP Photo/Hassan Ammar)

Azmi Bishara, an Israeli Arab and former lawmaker, speaks with journalists as he arrives to attend the emergency Arab leaders summit on Gaza in Doha, Qatar, Friday, Jan. 16, 2009. (AP Photo/Hassan Ammar)

“The Obama administration’s tilt toward Iran is so extreme that now a visa has been given to a Hezbollah terrorist so that he can visit Washington D.C.,” the source said. “The administration’s love affair with Iran is a disgrace to our country and a danger to our security.”

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

A former Arab member of Israel’s parliament who was forced to flee the country after he was accused of working as a top Hezbollah operative is slated to speak next week in Washington, D.C., raising questions about how he obtained permission to enter U.S. soil.

Azmi Bishara, who is accused by Israel’s Shin Bet secret service of helping Hezbollah plot terrorist operations, is confirmed to speak next week at Washington’s downtown Marriott hotel as part of a conference organized by The Arab Center of Washington, D.C.

An official from the Arab Center confirmed to the Washington Free Beacon that Bishara will be attending the event, raising questions about how an individual linked to a U.S.-designated sponsor of terror obtained permission to enter America.

Bishara was initially slated to speak alongside former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, who the Free Beacon has learned cancelled his appearance. The talk was to focus on the promotion of democracy in the Arab world, according to a current conference schedule.

McFaul’s image was removed from the conference’s webpage several hours after the Free Beacon made an inquiry into the event.

Bishara remains listed as a speaker.

Bishara, who has been living in Qatar since he fled Israel in 2007, is accused by Israel of helping Hezbollah select targets during its 2006 assault on the Jewish state. Israel is still seeking to detain Bishara and charge him for these terror offenses. Israeli authorities have said they will arrest Bishara if he returns to the country, where he could face the death penalty, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

The State Department declined to tell the Free Beacon if it granted a visa to Bishara. It remains unclear how he has gotten official permission to be in the United States, as Qatar, his current place of residence, is not part of the U.S. Visa Waiver Program.

A State Department official told the Free Beacon that visas are granted on a case-by-case basis, but remain confidential.

“We are unable to provide information on individual cases because visa records are confidential under U.S. law,” an official told the Free Beacon. “Visa applications are adjudicated on a case-by-case basis in accordance with U.S. law.”

Additionally, “Section 222 (f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) prohibits us from disclosing details from individual visa cases,” the official said.

One foreign policy insider familiar with the situation questioned how Bishara obtained entry to the United States.

“The Obama administration’s tilt toward Iran is so extreme that now a visa has been given to a Hezbollah terrorist so that he can visit Washington D.C.,” the source said. “The administration’s love affair with Iran is a disgrace to our country and a danger to our security.”

Bishara, a former chairman of Israel’s Balad political party, is accused by Israel of aiding Hezbollah agents during the 2006 war.

“Bishara allegedly provided ‘information, suggestions and recommendations,’ including censored material, to his contacts in Lebanon during the war,” according to Haaretz.

He currently serves as the general director at the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies in Qatar.

Categories: Hezbollah, Israel, Obama and Iran, Obama and Israel, Obama's America 2016
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

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

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »