Scarborough: No Idea How Obama has ‘Audacity’ to Second-Guess the FBI, MSNBC via YouTube, November 3, 2016
UK: Muslim leader says Muslims have “right” to use Sharia law in Britain, Jihad Watch,
“All that it is, you have these private and independent institutions arise from different minority communities, Sharia councils and Beit Din in the Jewish community, which are basically people who want to enact their right to religious life without interference from secularists.”
In saying this, al-Andalusi ignores the problem with Sharia courts entirely: Sharia councils are not equivalent to Beit Din in the Jewish community because Sharia, unlike Jewish law, asserts authority over unbelievers, as well as authority for governance. Moreover, with its sanction of wife-beating (Qur’an 4:34), devaluing of women’s testimony (Qur’an 2:282) and inheritance rights (Qur’an 4:11), allowance for polygamy (Qur’an 4:3), mandate of warfare against and subjugation of unbelievers (Qur’an 9:29), Sharia is incompatible with secular legal systems in numerous ways. Britain is in denial about that, as is the rest of the West. But sooner or later it will be quite painfully obvious to everyone.
“Muslims ‘have the RIGHT to use Sharia law in Britain’, says Islamic activist,” by Joe Barnes, Express, November 3, 2016:
AN ISLAMIC activist has claimed that Muslims have the right to use Sharia law and branded the Government’s inquiry into the matter as an “interference”.
Dr Ahmad al-Dubayan, chairman of the UK Board of Sharia Councils – a body set up to standardise the administration of Islamic law – said unregulated Sharia law courts exist “everywhere in the country”.
He told the Home Affairs Select Committee, on Tuesday, that the self-appointed courts are performing marriages and handing out divorces.
Although the unregulated bodies have no legal force or jurisdiction in the UK, they are regularly used by Muslim families to adjudicate on personal matters, the Committee heard….
He said: “We don’t know how many councils there are.
“Some people talk about 80 or 30 or 50, I don’t know. There is no record for this and no studies, unfortunately.”
He added that he could think of only two or three cases which had been unfair to women out of “hundreds” handled by Sharia councils.
The Select Committee heard that if Sharia courts are banned, backstreet courts will continue to operate but will slip even further under the radar.
Labour MP Naz Shah, who also giving evidence, admitted the councils could be used to “oppress” women.
She added: “Sharia itself is actually a code of conduct and the fundamental principal of Sharia is that the law of the land proceeds anything.
“You cannot enforce and have a second parallel legal system in this country.
“As a British lawmaker I’m very clear, we have one law and that law is of the British court.”
Abdullah al-Andalusi, co-founder of The Muslim Debate Initiative hit out at the Committee’s inquiry, claiming the “private or independent” bodies have the right to operate in Britain without “interference”.
Speaking on Sky News, he said: “All I would say is all this really amounts to is interference by a supposedly neutral body – the UK Government – into people’s religion and private affairs….
“All that it is, you have these private and independent institutions arise from different minority communities, Sharia councils and Beit Din in the Jewish community, which are basically people who want to enact their right to religious life without interference from secularists.”
FBI Leaks: Clinton Foundation Probe a ‘Very High Priority,’ Will Likely Lead to an Indictment, PJ Media, Debra Heine, November 2, 2016
UNITED STATES – JULY 8: Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton addresses the African Methodist Episcopal Church conference, CQ Roll Call via AP Images
Two sources with “intimate knowledge” of the FBI’s investigations into the Clinton emails and Clinton Foundation leaked new information about both of the probes to Fox News Wednesday. The sources say that the latter investigation has been going on for more than a year and is being led by the white-collar crime division of the FBI. They also say that the Clinton Foundation “pay to play” probe has taken a “very high priority,” and the FBI has re-interviewed multiple individuals involved in the case. The sources told Special Report‘s Bret Baier that their investigation will likely to lead to an indictment.
Additionally, Baier reported that according to Fox News’ sources, Clinton’s private email server had been breached by at least five foreign intelligence hackers. FBI Director James Comey said in July that he could not say definitively whether her server had been breached.
Via Fox News:
Even before the WikiLeaks dumps of alleged emails linked to the Clinton campaign, FBI agents had collected a great deal of evidence, law enforcement sources tell Fox News.”There is an avalanche of new information coming in every day,” one source told Fox News, who added some of the new information is coming from the WikiLeaks documents and new emails.
FBI agents are “actively and aggressively pursuing this case,” and will be going back and interviewing the same people again, some for the third time, sources said.
Agents are also going through what Clinton and top aides have said in previous interviews and the FBI 302, documents agents use to report interviews they conduct, to make sure notes line up, according to sources.
Fox News reports that the re-opened email investigation is being run by the national security division of the FBI and that they are combing through former NY congressman Anthony Weiner’s laptop. According to the sources, they’ve found emails that came from Hillary Clinton’s private email server that appear to be new. It is not yet known if the emails contain classified information, but that will be known soon.
As for those questionable immunity deals with Clinton’s top aides including Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, Fox reports that the laptops that were supposed to be destroyed as part of those deals, have not been destroyed and are now in fact currently in the FBI field office in Washington, D.C., “being exploited.”
The source told Fox News that if a subject at any point lies during the investigation, the immunity deal is “null and void.”
On The Kelly File Wednesday night, host Megyn Kelly asked former NY mayor Rudy Giuliani why all this is coming out now.
“We’re a couple of days out from the election. This would have been good to know a few weeks ago for the record,” Kelly said.
“Because my former assistant Jim Comey made the wrong decision in July,” Giuliani replied. “You have outraged FBI agents that talk to me. They’re outraged at the injustice. They’re outraged by being turned down by the Justice Department to open a grand jury. They are convinced that Loretta Lynch has corrupted the Justice Department. You’ve got people in the Justice Department involved in this investigation who were defense lawyers for Clinton people…. This is about as outrageous a corruption of the Justice Department that we’ve seen.”
Giuliani said that the dissension within the FBI is very real.
“These are men and women who uphold the law. They’re not a bunch of slimy Washington politicians like the Obama administration and the people Clinton would bring in. And the reality is that they are outraged with what they have seen,” the former prosecutor said.
“Mrs. Clinton has violated easily 20 – 30 federal laws,” he continued. “I could outline them for you, I could show you how I could prosecute and convict her.”
Giuliani said that back in July when he read FBI Director Comey’s prosecutorial memo about the email case, “it was just the opposite of what he said.”
He continued, “Every reasonable prosecutor would have prosecuted that case in a second. I’ve won convictions on half the evidence that the FBI had gotten in July, and Jim has an FBI that’s in revolt right now and I think that’s one of the reasons he came out and did what he did to try to control his agents — who after all are true law enforcement people. And what they see is some of the slimiest stuff that we’ve seen in Washington since probably Teapot Dome.”
“This is worse that Watergate,” Giuliani declared. “They’ve corrupted the State Department with ‘pay to play’ and they’ve corrupted the Justice Department. You can’t go much further than that, Megyn.”
Obama Gave Iran Money that Belonged to Iran’s Terror Victims, Counter Jihad, November 2, 2016
Once again, it seems as if neither the law nor the American interest are of great concern to this administration. When Iran is involved, at least, both the law and our national interests are always set aside.
****************
Here at CounterJihad, we have covered the transfer by the Obama administration of $1.7 billion in giant pallets of cash to the terrorist elements within Iran’s government. None of the administration’s stories justifying this transfer of wealth to the main state sponsor of terrorism have made sense. It was not necessary to transfer the money in cash, for example. The transfer really was a hostage ransom payment, in spite of their denials, to take a second example.
Today, we learned that another aspect of their justification was flawed. The Obama administration has claimed that the money transferred to Iran belonged to Iran anyway, as a kind of refund for weapons sales that did not happen. This was always a highly questionable claim, as the government that paid us the money was not the same government that now rules over Iran. It is unclear why the Iranian revolutionary government would be entitled to moneys advanced by the Shah of Iran. This makes no more sense than if a homeowner had overpaid property taxes, and the government responded by sending the overpaid money not to him but to the squatters who had forcibly occupied his home over his protest. Of course, the Shah was no longer in a position to receive a refund, so it wasn’t clear that the money should go to anyone.
What we have learned most recently, however, is that the money did have a proper owner: victims of Iran’s support of terror.
Alisa Flatow, a twenty-year-old Brandeis University honors student spending her junior year abroad in Israel, boarded a bus in Jerusalem bound for a popular resort area in Gaza. It was the height of the “peace process,” celebrated the year before with Nobel Peace prizes. As the bus entered Gaza, a van filled with explosives slammed into it. Eight people, including Alisa, were killed, and more than 40 others were injured. The attack was carried out by a faction of Islamic Jihad controlled, financed, and directed by the highest levels of Iran’s government…. A federal district court issued a 35-page opinion, Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran (1998), awarding a total of $20 million in compensatory damages as well as punitive damages, with both types of damages specifically authorized by the U.S. Congress….
In all, sixteen cases were decided against Iran by courts in the United States between 1998 and 2004, with awards of compensatory damages totaling some $400 million and punitive damages totaling $3.5 billion.
Of course, the problem faced by each victorious plaintiff was collecting the judgment. Stephen Flatow, after unsuccessfully seeking to have the damages paid out of various Iranian assets held in the United States, learned of the $400 million in the FMS fund. The Clinton administration had supported the legislation that allowed suits such as Flatow’s, but then strenuously opposed any effort to have the judgments satisfied from that fund.
In other words, the money was spoken for before the Obama administration elected to transfer it to the IRGC. It belonged, by the authorization of Congress and the decision of Federal courts, to victims of terrorism sponsored by the Iranian government. Iran owes them all that money, and a great deal more.
The Obama administration has not rethought its position on sending Iran more and more money, whatever the law may say. The State Department been busy recently trying to drum up investment for Iran instead. Secretary of State John F. Kerry has been telling unlikely stories about the sanctions still in place on Iran in order to try to convince bankers to send Iran even more cash. On this question, it should be noted by anyone thinking of investing, the State Department and the Treasury are very much at odds.
Once again, it seems as if neither the law nor the American interest are of great concern to this administration. When Iran is involved, at least, both the law and our national interests are always set aside.
Government Must Ask Parliament to Trigger Article 50, High Court Rules
3 Nov 2016
Source: Government Must Ask Parliament to Trigger Article 50, High Court Rules
The court ruled that Prime Minister Theresa May does not have the authority to use the Royal Prerogative to invoke the EU divorce process.
The Lord Chief Justice has ruled that the government’s arguments are “contrary to fundamental constitutional principles of the sovereignty of parliament”.
He added: “The court does not accept the argument put forward by the government. There is nothing in the text of the 1972 Act to support it.”
Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas, sitting with the Master of the Rolls, Sir Terence Etherton, and Lord Justice Sales, delivered the verdict Thursday morning after a three-day hearing in October.
The Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC had argued the move could be a “backdoor” to overruled the Brexit vote, but did not turn up to court today.
Gina Miller, one of the claimants who brought the article 50 case, said in a statement outside Royal Courts of Justice that the government should accept the ruling.
However, the government has said it will appeal the decision.
A spokesman said: “The Government is disappointed by the decision.
“The country voted to leave the European Union in a referendum approved by Act of Parliament. And the Government is determined to respect the result of the referendum.”
The Supreme Court will likely hear the case on 7 December.
UKIP’s interim leader Nigel Farage said:
“I worry that a betrayal may be near at hand. Last night at the Spectator Parliamentary Awards I had a distinct feeling that our political class, who were out in force, do not accept the 23rd of June Referendum result.
“I now fear that every attempt will be made to block or delay the triggering of Article 50. If this is so, they have no idea of the level of public anger they will provoke.”
Speaking on BBC Radio 5 Live, he added that he feared Britain was heading for a “half Brexit”, and warned he would return to frontline politics if Britain had not left the EU by 2019.
“We are heading for a half Brexit…. I’m becoming increasingly worried.
“I see MPs from all parties saying, oh well, actually we should stay part of the single market, we should continue with our daily financial contributions.
“I think we could be at the beginning, with this ruling, of a process where there is deliberate, wilful attempt by our political class to betray 17.4 million voters.”
Leave.EU co-chairman Arron backs said that “unelected judges and out of touch politicians” had “declared war on British democracy”.
“Why wouldn’t unelected judges want to preserve an EU system where unelected elites like themselves are all-powerful?” he added.
America’s “Arab Spring”, Gatestone Institute, Nonie Darwish, November 3, 2016
Americans have a choice: they can either keep on empowering Islam, and helping extremist Muslims infiltrate into the American system — even as there is a resolution in the House of Representatives to shut down all criticism of Islam — or they can end the gamble of the current administration, which seems bent on changing America forever by allowing the worldwide empowerment of Islam. They can continue the Islamist “Arab Spring” revolution to change “America as we know it” or preserve the freedoms of the American republic.
********************************
President Obama appears to have been told that if all these secular dictators could be brought down, a magnificent Arab Spring would blossom. This was, it seems, precisely the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood: to get America’s help to topple the dictatorships — then mostly military and secular — but then to replace them with themselves, Islamists.
After Egypt took down the Muslim Brotherhood, the goal of establishing the Islamic Caliphate in Egypt simply moved to Syria, the only Arab nation where a secular Muslim leader had survived the Arab Spring.
Promoting Islam also seems to have been a major factor in Obama’s equation for America. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton followed suit, hosting several closed-door conferences on “Defamation of Religion,” to suppress free speech and internationally criminalize any criticism of Islam with fines and prison. She would rather blame terrorism on free speech than on the violent tenets of Islam.
This escalating subversion should be reason enough for all Western democratic countries permanently to part company with the United Nations. Its history of corruption is neither new nor surprising, or that it is run anti-democratic “club of dictators” whose interests are opposite to ours.
The goals of U.S. President Barack Obama in the Middle East ended the rule of most of the “secular” Arab leaders in the area. His views may have come, partly at least, from propaganda on why Muslim people supposedly lacked freedom there. Obama appears to have been told that if all these secular dictators could be brought down, a magnificent Arab Spring would blossom.
This was, it seems, precisely the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood: to get America’s help to topple the dictatorships — then mostly military and secular — but then to replace them with themselves, Islamists.
The goals of the Muslim Brotherhood happened to be in tune with Obama’s goals in the Middle East. Obama’s first major presidential speech took place in Cairo before a large number of Islamic sheikhs and members of the Muslim Brotherhood. They were empowered and given legitimacy by Obama. A scorned Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak did not attend; thus, with the blessing of the United States, the Muslim Brotherhood’s rise to power in Egypt was begun.
Obama’s first major presidential speech, on June 4, 2009, took place in Cairo before a large number of Islamic sheikhs and members of the Muslim Brotherhood. They were empowered and given legitimacy by Obama. A scorned Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak did not attend; thus, with the blessing of the United States, the Muslim Brotherhood’s rise to power in Egypt was begun. (Image source: White House)
Today, ordinary Egyptians link the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood directly to the Obama administration. Cairo was about to become the capital of the new Islamic Caliphate if Egyptians had not, after a year, come out in the millions to stop it.
The Obama administration did not appear happy with the counter-revolution, and the rise to power of Egypt’s current president, General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, and began doing everything it could to thwart it.
Egypt was back to square one: a military dictatorship that it had once convinced the West was the cause of its oppression.
America’s “Arab Spring” adventure — to topple secular dictators to bring about democracies — did not exactly work as planned. Bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East failed miserably, but the tyranny of the Caliphate, which had been the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood in the first place, was building. After Egypt took down the Muslim Brotherhood, the goal of establishing the Islamic Caliphate in Egypt simply moved to Syria, the only Arab nation where a secular Muslim leader had survived the Arab Spring.
Promoting Islam also seems to have been a major factor in Obama’s equation for America. Before Obama started to implement his promise to “change America as we know it,” he first had to change the Middle East as they knew it. Many of the changes over which he presided were in harmony with the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood. Its motto is: “Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”
But while the Muslim brotherhood has been made illegal in Egypt, the Obama administration still refuses to label the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. Under Obama, Islam became untouchable, not open to any kind of criticism. He even claimed that “Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding.”
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton followed suit, and hosted several closed-door conferences in Washington and London on “Defamation of Religion,” to suppress free speech and internationally criminalize any criticism of Islam with fines and prison.
Even in a recent debate, Clinton stated, “Islam was always part of American history — even since the Revolutionary War.”
She would rather blame terrorism on free speech than on the violent tenets of Islam.
Only a person from the Middle East could understand the immense value of such a gift to the goals of Islamic jihadists in America.
It is unfortunate that many Americans apparently still do not know that Islamists rewrite history in order to claim that any land they wish to conquer was originally Islamic or founded by Muslims — even though historically Islam did not exist until seventh century, hundreds of years after Judaism and Christianity.
Today, Muslims have re-written their history books to claim that Muslims originally built the ancient Jewish Biblical sites, and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has bowed to the wishes of Qatar and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) — a bloc of 56 Islamic nations plus “Palestine” — to back up this fiction. UNESCO recently passed resolutions obscenely declaring ancient Jewish Biblical monuments — such as Hebron’s Cave of the Patriarchs, Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem and Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, home of the great ancient Jewish Temples — Islamic sites.
Which country will be next? This escalating subversion should be reason enough for all Western democratic countries permanently to part company with the United Nations. Its history of corruption is neither new nor surprising, or that it is run anti-democratic “club of dictators” whose interests are opposite to ours.
Jihadists today are stating that they also have a claim over Italy, Greece, and Spain — and now America. Obama and Hillary Clinton actually just solidified such claims for future Muslim history books about who actually built America.
Americans have a choice: they can either keep on empowering Islam, and helping extremist Muslims infiltrate into the American system — even as there is a resolution in the House of Representatives to shut down all criticism of Islam — or they can end the gamble of the current administration, which seems bent on changing America forever by allowing the worldwide empowerment of Islam. They can continue the Islamist “Arab Spring” revolution to change “America as we know it” or preserve the freedoms of the American republic.
It has recently become clear through WikiLeaks that the American system is indeed rigged and that Washington DC has turned into a swamp; or more accurately an “Arab Spring” swamp.
Egypt, on a much smaller scale, had to face such a choice in 2012-13, between life under the values of the Muslim Brotherhood or a life under a sliver of hope for a democracy, which Islam, under its laws, can never allow.
Both Egyptians and the West sorely need to understand that Islamic law, sharia, does not permit anything other than an Islamic government under the rule of Islamic law. Consequently, only military force can stand against sharia tyranny. The Muslim Brotherhood had proven once again that the only way out of Islamic theocracies is through military dictatorships.
A head-on collision over the future of America is underway. Many Americans still do not understand the magnitude of what is at stake, but many Islamists do: they are lying in wait, hoping to return to their budding Caliphate.
Source: Exclusive: Trump beats Clinton in Israeli absentee-voter exit poll – US Elections – Jerusalem Post
The total number of votes coming from Israel, 30,000, is significantly lower than voter turnout in Israel in 2012, which some say is because of the candidates running.
Trump received 49% of the Israeli-American vote, while Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton got 44%, according to the poll conducted by get-out-the-vote organization iVoteIsrael and KEEVOON Global Research.
Another 2% voted for Libertarian Gary Johnson, and the rest chose “other” or said they voted for Congress and not a presidential candidate.
Full results of the exit poll, including state-by-state results, will be available on Thursday. The poll was taken on Monday-Wednesday of this week, among 1,140 respondents, and has a 3% margin of error.
According to the US Vote Foundation, an international get-out-the-vote organization for absentee voters, the top 10 states for voters sending ballots from Israel are New York – from which a third of such voters hail – New Jersey, California, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland and Texas. Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania are swing states.
The total number of votes coming from Israel, 30,000, is significantly lower than voter turnout in Israel in 2012, when 80,000 Americans in Israel used iVoteIsrael’s voter aid services alone.
Eitan Charnoff, iVoteIsrael executive director, said the low turnout, despite the organization holding dozens of events and the major parties’ Israeli representatives being active as well, is due to this year’s candidates.
“I think that a lot of people expressed a lack of enthusiasm about either candidate,” he stated. “It will be interesting to see if that is reflected in the voting in the US next week as well.”
The results also greatly differed. In 2012, iVoteIsrael’s exit poll found that 84% of Americans in Israel voted for Republican Mitt Romney and 14% voted to reelect US President Barack Obama.
The shift in voting patterns shows “the dynamic nature of politics and how people choose to vote for the US president in Israel,” Charnoff posited.
Recent Comments