Archive for March 25, 2017

Chuck Grassley Demands Answers About Illegal Aliens Accused of Raping 14-Year-Old

March 25, 2017

Chuck Grassley Demands Answers About Illegal Aliens Accused of Raping 14-Year-Old, Breitbart, Katie McHugh, March 24, 2017

(Please see also High School Rapists Entered U.S. as Unaccompanied Alien Children, Lived in Sanctuary County. — DM)

There is almost no monitoring of the young illegals once they’re shipped into the U.S. interior, an expert on illegal immigration told Breitbart News: “The federal office within HHS that is responsible for their resettlement has spent billions of dollars, but does little monitoring of the kids beyond one phone call to check in with the household. They say that many kids will not be at the address where they were resettled, and they lose track of most of them.”

Sanchez Milian and Montano allegedly dragged the young victim into a bathroom and forced her into a stall as she tried holding onto a sink. They allegedly raped the victim orally, vaginally, and anally, sometimes simultaneously, in a bathroom stall while she screamed, according to a police interview with the victim. A forensic specialist later found blood and bodily fluids in the boys’ bathroom after the victim told school staff about the alleged attack.

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

Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley fired off letters to two Cabinet agencies demanding answers about the illegal alien suspected accused of raping a 14-year-old girl during school hours at Rockville High School.

Officials in the Maryland county where the alleged March 16 rape use their legal power to shield illegal aliens with criminal convictions from being sent home — and Grassley wants to know how the Department of Homeland Security plans to stop the possible release of illegal alien suspects Henry E. Sanchez. Sanchez Milian, 18, and Jose Montano, 17.

“Montgomery County, Maryland is a well-known sanctuary jurisdiction,” Grassley asked DHS Secretary John Kelly. “If Montgomery County or any other local law enforcement agency declines to honor a detainer or notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) regarding Jose Montano and Henry Sanchez Milian, what action will DHS take to ensure that they are not released from custody and allowed to reoffend?”

Grassley also wants to review the agency’s record of the suspects’ immigration histories, criminal records, gang affiliations and immigration benefits.

The Iowa senator also requested that Department of Health and Human Services, which oversaw young illegals from the Central American surge caught at the border and released into the U.S. under Obama administration policies, provide information about the illegal alien suspects’ sponsors. Roughly eighty percent of the illegal alien minors were placed in the custody of other illegals.

Roughly eighty percent of the illegal alien minors released at the border were placed in the custody of other illegals.

There is almost no monitoring of the young illegals once they’re shipped into the U.S. interior, an expert on illegal immigration told Breitbart News: “The federal office within HHS that is responsible for their resettlement has spent billions of dollars, but does little monitoring of the kids beyond one phone call to check in with the household. They say that many kids will not be at the address where they were resettled, and they lose track of most of them.”

Sanchez Milian and Montano allegedly dragged the young victim into a bathroom and forced her into a stall as she tried holding onto a sink. They allegedly raped the victim orally, vaginally, and anally, sometimes simultaneously, in a bathroom stall while she screamed, according to a police interview with the victim. A forensic specialist later found blood and bodily fluids in the boys’ bathroom after the victim told school staff about the alleged attack.

The alleged gang-rape took place a month before her fifteenth birthday, according to the date of birth marked on the detective’s statement of probable cause.

Sanchez Milian’s attorney claims the alleged rape was “consensual” and his client “is being used as an unjust scapegoat by the opponents of recent immigration practices.”

Sanchez Milian and Montano face “first-degree rape and two counts of first-degree sexual offense,” according to WTOP.com. ICE has a immigration detainer request on Sanchez Milian, but would not comment on Montano’s case since he is still a minor at 17.

Read Grassley’s letters to Kelly and HHS Secretary Tom Price are here.

Defending Our Police Officers

March 25, 2017

Defending Our Police Officers, PJ MediaDavid Solway, March 24, 2017

Police officers leave flowers on Westminster Bridge Aftermath of terror attack outside parliament, London, UK – 24 Mar 2017 (Rex Features via AP Images)

When the fire alarm was pulled by a cohort of rowdy student demonstrators prior to my wife’s anti-feminist talk at the University of Toronto in March 2013, she was hustled for her protection into a nearby patrol car. I appreciated the sympathetic police officer who stood guard beside me at the car door. When I muttered that I would destroy anyone who laid a finger on Janice, he replied: “I’m with you, bro.”

I recall, too, an event at St. Paul University in Ottawa where a masked rabble, calling itself the Revolutionary Student Movement — Marxists in the making — disrupted a talk by journalist and author Cathy Young. When I suggested to the police officers present that the paddy wagon should be called in and the protestors arrested, the officers were plainly uncomfortable, one of whom confessed that they had no authority to do so. A good man, he shrugged his shoulders and gave me a rueful look. I later met one of this honorable cadre of officers at a conservative conference, who told me he often felt ashamed of his superiors and resented some of the orders he was compelled to follow.

Of course, there were, and are, bad apples among ordinary cops, but I have always respected the orchard. Indeed, some of my best students were to be found in the Police Tech classes I regularly taught. Their interests were not strictly academic or distinctively intellectual, but they were diligent, reliable and unfailingly courteous — in this regard, they formed an ideal body of students and citizens who took their responsibilities seriously. Regrettably, one cannot say the same for the general run of their compromised and politically correct superiors, who will often order their subordinates to “stand down” during protests, street demonstrations and riots.

Clearly, it is in the leadership where the general rot sets in, that is, where career and perquisites tend to take precedence over duty and conscience. We have seen many instances of reprehensible conduct on the part of higher authority, of which the most outrageous in Canada was the Caledonia scandal in which the police, under orders from former OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino, allowed “First Nations” vandals to rampage for years over a land dispute — giving them “space to destroy,” as in the Baltimore riots. Authorities like LAPD Police Chief Charlie Beck or Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy preventing police from carrying out their prescribed duties in enforcing immigration orders, or Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker announcing he will defy Trump’s cut in Planned Parenthood funding also spring immediately to mind. The roster of civic and political disreputables doesn’t end there.

While it is heartening to see President Trump offer his respect and support for the nation’s police officers who carry out their lawful mandate, even when it goes against the individual’s grain, it is equally distressing to note the lawless disobedience of many in the top echelons who refuse to accept his presidential orders. In the law enforcement community, this is the point at which the police unions, where they exist, should step in to enable their members to perform both their lawful and morally legitimate duties, whether by wielding the strike option or work-to-rule policy. Canadian policemen are on the whole better off than their American colleagues, but they too are frequently countermanded by the police bureaucracy and forced to act against their moral judgement or are cruelly harassed on the flimsiest of grounds. In such instances officers may have recourse to the courts, though such an expedient may be hazardous to their employment prospects and service record.

But not always. In a case that lasted for 12 years, a certain Sgt. Peter Merrifield of the fabled Mounties has just won a major decision against his superintendent, who persecuted him mercilessly for running for a Conservative Party nomination. The RCMP, reports the National Post, “has been dogged for years by accusations of a toxic internal culture rife with bullying and harassment.” One can readily detect how senior officials, generally of a left-liberal stamp, are influenced by political considerations, to the detriment of their subalterns. Merrifield is now advocating for RCMP unionization.

Obviously, in the present ideological milieu, it’s not good for one’s reputation or bank balance to praise or come to the defense of rank-and-file policemen, as I can attest from personal experience. For example, an article I wrote, inter alia defending policemen and ordinary citizens who found themselves under attack by thugs like Mike Brown and Trayvon Martin, appeared in one of Canada’s literary journals. It was very quickly scrubbed and de-archived. The editor wrote a blogpology in which I was, in effect, branded as a systemic racist, and my métier as a published author in this country soon crashed and burned.

Policemen Darren Wilson and Daniel Pantaleo, as well as neighborhood-watch civilian George Zimmerman, whom I had in mind in the offending article, were all eventually vindicated, but progressivist sympathy is almost instinctively extended, often on racial grounds, to criminal perpetrators. As Heather Mac Donald writes in City Journal, “On the left, it is only acceptable to speak about the loss of a black life if a police officer is responsible. But police shootings, overwhelmingly triggered by violently resisting suspects, cause a minute fraction of black homicide deaths.” To imply as I did that Wilson, Pantaleo and Zimmerman had reason and justice on their side leads, in our left-oriented, “social justice” climate of identity politics, to social and professional ostracism — my case is by no means unique — and far worse to on-and-off duty policemen. According to reports, 64 police officers were shot and ambushed in the U.S. in 2016 in a veritable war on cops.

Ordinary policemen, who daily put their lives on the line to ensure public security, are getting a raw deal. Often handcuffed by their politically appointed superiors and the object of much public odium and media calumny, they run the double threat of violence and misprision. “Our officers, deputies and troopers believe the political leadership of this country abandoned them,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions at the National Association of Attorneys General Annual Winter Meeting; “Their morale has suffered.”

I think back to my Police Tech students and wonder about the life they have chosen for themselves. Canada is a more temperate country than the U.S., but they run real risks and receive little in the way of gratitude or respect for a service most of us are not willing to perform.

“I’m with you, bro,” as the officer standing beside me said, protecting my wife from possible assault. It’s time we returned the favor.

Cartoons and Video of the Day

March 25, 2017

Latma-TV via YouTube

 

H/t Town Hall Cartoons

 

H/t Freedom is Just Another Word

 

H/t Power Line

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pope Francis Tells EU Leaders: Populism Is ‘Egotism’

March 25, 2017

Pope Francis Tells EU Leaders: Populism Is ‘Egotism’ BreitbartThomas D. Williams, Ph.D., March 25, 2017

(Thank you, your Holiness, for your humble words of religious political wisdom. We will stop being populists, respect our all-wise unelected bureaucrats and our elected but powerless EU Parliament. We will do as you and our other betters command us. Amen.

Oh well.– DM)

Getty

Solidarity is “the most effective antidote to modern forms of populism,” Pope Francis told European Union leaders Friday, in a politically charged speech denouncing nationalism as a modern form of selfishness.

In his address to more than 20 European heads of state assembled in Rome for the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome that marked the beginning of the European Economic Community (EEC), the Pope advocated a stronger, consolidated Europe against the rising tide of populist movements.

(Video at the link. — DM)

The pontiff contrasted solidarity, which draw us “closer to our neighbors,” with populism, which is “the fruit of an egotism that hems people in and prevents them from overcoming and ‘looking beyond’ their own narrow vision.”

As a number of European countries prepare for important national elections pitting neo-populist leaders against mostly established, left-leaning parties, the Pope took an unusually overt stand in favor of a Eurocentric vision of the future of the region.

“There is a need to start thinking once again as Europeans,” Francis said, “so as to avert the opposite dangers of a dreary uniformity or the triumph of particularisms.”

“Politics needs this kind of leadership, which avoids appealing to emotions to gain consent, but instead, in a spirit of solidarity and subsidiarity, devises policies that can make the Union as a whole develop harmoniously,” he added.

This union will only be lasting and successful if the common will of Europe “proves more powerful than the will of individual nations,” Francis said, quoting the Prime Minister of Luxembourg.

France will hold its first round of elections on April 23, followed by a second round on May 7. The latest polls show the Socialist candidate Emmanuel Macron just one percentage point behind the Eurosceptic front-runner Marine Le-Pen, who presently stands to win 25 percent of the first round of voting.

Meanwhile in its federal election slated for next September 24, Germany’s chancellor Angela Merkel of the center-left Christian Democratic Union (CDU) will face off against Martin Schulz of the Social Democratic party, as well as the small but growing Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party. Merkel’s CDU is part of a strong coalition that includes the Christian Social Union (CSU) as well as the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD). Despite Merkel’s ebbing popularity, she is still the current favorite for the fall elections.

In Italy, although a date for the next general elections has not yet been set, a new survey this week put the Eurosceptic 5-Star Movement at 32.3 percent of the vote, five and a half points ahead of the ruling center-left Democratic Party (PD). The poll also put found that the right wing populist Northern League party would currently take 12.8 percent of the vote, ahead of former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia at 12.7 percent.

In his address Friday, Pope Francis described Europe as strongest when it “refuses to yield to fear or close herself off in false forms of security,” asserting that “her history has been greatly determined by encounters with other peoples and cultures.”

Europe’s history, he insisted, “is, and always has been, a dynamic and multicultural identity.”

While recognizing that “one frequently has the sense that there is a growing ‘split’ between the citizenry and the European institutions, which are often perceived as distant and inattentive to the different sensibilities present in the Union,” Francis nonetheless continued to advocate for a strong European Union over a shift toward greater decision making at the national level.

“Today the European Union needs to recover the sense of being primarily a ‘community’ of persons and peoples, to realize that ‘the whole is greater than the part, but it is also greater than the sum of its parts,’” he said.

Canadians Duped: A Victorious Day for Islamic Supremacists

March 25, 2017

Canadians Duped: A Victorious Day for Islamic Supremacists, Jihad Watch

(Please see also, Satire | Jamie Glazov Moment: How Not to Blame Islam for the Jihad in London.– DM)

The controversial Muslim author and speaker Irshad Manji once told Canada’s Globe and Mail that “offending people may be the only way to achieving a pluralistic society.” The best defense against the Islamophobia ploy is the active defense of our constitutionally protected principles of human rights, especially the freedom of speech, even when that speech is offensive, and the encouragement of pluralism within Islam. To criticize or insult Islam — or any religion, for that matter — is neither racist nor incitement to hatred. In fact, the reverse is true: smothering public discourse creates a fertile ground for toxic emotions to fester against Muslims, thereby creating the opposite of what Iqra Khalid says she is trying to do.

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

The Canadian House of Commons passed anti-Islamophobia motion (M-103) on Thursday, leaving opponents stunned that protests and tens of thousands of Canadian signatures to petitions calling for rejection of the motion were ignored. M-103 was touted as advancing tolerance, inclusiveness and racial harmony, but instead it bestows a special status to Muslims and is a first step in edging Canada down a dangerous path, eroding the freedom of speech and potentially leading to the censorship of reporting on crimes committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. After the cover-up of the UK’s “grooming gangs” and the eventual revelation that up to “one million white English children” may have been victims of Muslim rape gangs; the sex assaults in Germany which have led to signs in pool areas telling Muslim migrants that it is not appropriate to touch women; Sweden’s rape crisis; and France’s no-go zones, the German Media Council told journalists not to mention the ethnicity or religion of perpetrators on the grounds that it would be discriminatory to do so. This leaves Westerners ignorant and uninformed, and living in a permanent state of unease.

In a Toronto Sun article entitled “I’m a liberal Muslim and I reject M-103,” Farzana Hassan writes:

Internationally, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation has moved to curtail “Islamophobia” in the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights. I categorically reject such restriction on free speech, just as I reject M-103, tabled by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid, who has refused to remove the term from the motion.

Following the passage of M-103, a reporter in the CBC video here begins by saying: “That woman with the glasses is Liberal Iqra Khalid. It’s hard to tell if she’s happy or just relieved that her motion passed.” Khalid emerged beaming like the proverbial cat that got the canary after her victory in Parliament by a 201-91 vote, courtesy of the majority Liberal government. Most Conservative Members of Parliament voted against the motion, “with leadership candidate Michael Chong and Simcoe North MP Bruce Stanton voting in favour.” Some say that a motion is harmless, but it is not. It guides legislative decisions. Liberal MP Raj Grewal revealed the ominous intentions behind the “anti-Islamophobia” motion during the M-103 parliamentary debate of February 15, 2017, when he stated:

One of the most important things about the motion that Canadians should understand is that it encourages a committee to collect data and to present that data in a contextualized manner so we, as members of Parliament elected to this chamber, can study it and propose laws.

Iqra Khalid now stands as a hero among Islamic supremacists after managing quite cleverly to play the victim herself and on behalf of other Muslims. She spoke to reporters after the motion was passed on Thursday:

“I’m really happy that the vote today has shown positive support for this motion and I’m really looking forward to the committee taking on this study,”

Khalid is referring to the Commons heritage committee, which is now tasked with developing a “government-wide approach for reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination, including Islamophobia.” Following the passage of M-103, Khalid was swamped by the media, and pressed by a reporter on whether she thought she could have allayed the concerns of many Canadians by including a written definition of “Islamophobia.” Instead of addressing the question, Khalid clumsily dodged answering. The reporter continued: “Why won’t you answer my question?,” at which point Khalid rudely turned away from him. Still in full avoidance mode, she turned to another reporter, who embarrassed her further by stating that she, too, was  interested in an answer to the question. Now cornered and looking foolish, Khalid turned back to the original reporter and asked, “What was the question?” The reporter repeated himself but she replied only by hailing the merits of M-103, stating that it involved a collaborative effort and had the support of Canadians, parliamentarians and grassroots organizations, which is a bogus assertion. There was no collaboration, but rather a dictation to all Canadians by the Liberal government and Islamic supremacists.

Khalid refused discussion with community members and groups that did not align with her agenda, including those who stressed the need either to fully define “Islamophobia” or otherwise change the word in the interests of a united Canada. One of those groups was the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), which stated in a declaration that “We believe the term ‘Islamophobia’ should be replaced with a more precise phrase, such as ‘anti-Muslim bigotry,’ which was suggested by, among others, former Justice Minister Irwin Cotler.” Jews and blacks still suffer more hate and racism, by far, than Muslims do, but Iqra Khalid was not interested in them, nor in inclusiveness.

If Khalid’s intentions were as benign as she pretends them to be, she would hardly be so dogmatically resistant to adopted the suggested phrase, “anti-Muslim bigotry,” that was presented to her as an option that would be acceptable to all peace-loving Canadians. Khalid sought to use the specifically branded term of “Islamophobia,” which is a broad and sweeping term intended to intimidate and silence critics of Islam. Iqra Khalid appeared to be well aware of the confusion that resulted from her “Islamophobia” motion as she remained resolute in insisting on that word.

Khalid is well versed in deceit, and has, despite her harmless appearance, a questionable history. She is a former president of the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Muslim Student Association (MSA) at York University. MSA’s are “essentially an arm of the Saudi-funded, Muslim Brotherhood-controlled Muslim World League.” The Muslim Student Associations are also well known for their aggressive Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions drives on campus to demonize and delegitimize the State of Israel, and for their intimidation of Jewish students. In January 2016, Khalid received a red carpet welcome from board members of the Palestine House in Mississauga (near Toronto) and a “large number of members of the Palestinian  community,” including Palestinian political activists. Palestine House supports the Palestinian al-Quds Intifada, and its settlement program was defunded by the former Conservative Harper government for allying itself with terrorism.

The controversy surrounding Khalid’s motion was first portrayed in the mass media as an issue of right versus left and of white supremacists versus “immigrants.” Even the tragic shooting in January at the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City — which killed six people and injured 19 — ended up being used as a political rallying point to shore up support for M-103 and fan the flames of division that were spreading fast, despite the lack of transparency about what really occurred at that mosque and the motive behind the shooting. But Forum Research proved that Canadians still widely rejected M-103. The research group found that only 14% of people supported M-103, and an Angus Reid poll showed that only 12% thought that M-103 was “‘worth passing’ and ‘will help reduce anti-Muslim attitudes and discrimination.’”

Behind Khalid were muscular Muslim Brotherhood lobbies and a global network. Canada’s first anti-Islamophobia motion that passed in October and the second, M-103, were built on petition e-411 by Samer Majzoub, who managed a Muslim Brotherhood-linked Montreal high school, and is a leader of the self-described Muslim Brotherhood-linked Muslim Association of Canada (MAC). Majzoub even accused Conservative MPs of “stoking a wave of anti-Muslim sentiment” in opposing M-103.

Petition e-411, which was presented with 70,000 signatures, outlined the contributions of Islam throughout history and declared Islam a religion of peace that had been hijacked by a violent few. The petition was celebrated by the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), the former Canadian branch of CAIR (CAIR-CAN). CAIR was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism funding trial in U.S. history, related to funding Hamas. CAIR was also designated a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates. The NCCM’s Executive Director, Ihsaan Gardee, said of the first anti-Islamophobia motion that it sent “a strong message to Canadians that discrimination and hatred against Muslims is unacceptable.” Six major Canadian cities also signed an anti-Islamophobia charter last summer, which was initiated by the NCCM.

Those who are pushing the “Islamophobia” agenda have not finished, either in Canada or worldwide. This nefarious scheme can be traced all the way up to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The OIC has many member nations that once subscribed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but which signed on to the Cairo Declaration of Human rights in August 1990. The Cairo declaration affirmed that Sharia is the sole source of determining human rights. Sharia is regarded as divine law, and any insult to Muhammad or Islam is deemed blasphemous.

The passing of this “Islamophobia” motion in Canada represents a low point for freedom and an outstanding achievement for Islamic supremacists. For over 20 years, the OIC has been pressuring the West to restrict tghe free speech in accordance with its charter to “to combat defamation of Islam.” In 2009, an official OIC organization, the International Islamic Fiqh (Jurisprudence) Academy, issued fatwas calling for bans on the freedom of speech, legislation to protect Islamic interests, and judicial punishment for public expressions of apostasy. Demands to ban the freedom of speech also came from Egypt’s Salafist Nour party, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hizballah and al-Qaeda-linked groups.

The “Islamophobia” subterfuge is not new in Canada. In November 2012, a video created by a member of the Canadian military that mocked Osama bin Laden was deemed Islamophobic. The video was shown during an event as a satire of the brutalities practiced within Islamic regimes, which freedom-loving Muslims themselves rail against. The head of the Royal Canadian Air Force, Lt.-Gen. Yvan Blondin, was so upset by this video that he issued an apology to those who were offended and stated that the military has “zero tolerance for acts that do not reflect our Canadian values, especially the respect we owe to other cultures and religions.” A full military investigation was also launched, with a promise to follow through with disciplinary action against those involved. CAIR-CAN called it “tragic that an ignorant prank threatens to cast a shadow on our heritage.” The real tragedy, however, was the intimidation and attempt at censorship. And as accusations of “Islamophobia” grow more common in the West, there are bound to be much more intimidation and censorship.

In a special contribution to the Montreal Gazette, Montreal physician Dr. Sherif Emil, who grew up in Saudi Arabia, wrote prior to the passing of M-103:

The demagoguery of Islamophobia is already manifest in the Liberals’ apparent quest to brand all opposed to M-103 as extremists, racists and bigots. All three opposition parties supported an alternative motion that urged the House to condemn “all forms of systemic racism, religious intolerance, and discrimination of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, and other religious communities….

No Liberal MP supported the motion; it seems they did not have the guts to defy their prime minister and be — well — liberal.

The controversial Muslim author and speaker Irshad Manji once told Canada’s Globe and Mail that “offending people may be the only way to achieving a pluralistic society.” The best defense against the Islamophobia ploy is the active defense of our constitutionally protected principles of human rights, especially the freedom of speech, even when that speech is offensive, and the encouragement of pluralism within Islam. To criticize or insult Islam — or any religion, for that matter — is neither racist nor incitement to hatred. In fact, the reverse is true: smothering public discourse creates a fertile ground for toxic emotions to fester against Muslims, thereby creating the opposite of what Iqra Khalid says she is trying to do.

Some other recent incidents of Islamic supremacist incursion in Canada: Ontario also unanimously passed an anti-Islamophobia motion, and most disappointing was that Progressive Conservative leader Patrick Brown “instructed” his caucus to vote for it; the Peel Regional School Board in Mississauga is not only allowing Islamic sermons, but is refusing to monitor the contents of those sermons. Parents are furious. When protests erupted a couple of months ago, Peel police intervened as if they were Sharia police and bullied a female protester outside. New protests have now begun. Last Wednesday, a Peel District School Board meeting about Muslim prayer was cleared by police after some infuriated attendees shouted comments about Sharia and concerns about the Islamic indoctrination of children; pages were torn from a Quran.

Author Bruce Bawer in his book While Europe Slept warns that Europe is being destroyed from within by Islamic incursion, and most Europeans don’t even know it is happening. The same process has begun in Canada, with its suicidal refugee policy of welcoming in unvetted asylum seekers and ramming “anti-Islamophobia” initiatives down the throats of Canadians, along with the persistence of Canadian authorities in unreasonably accommodating Islamic supremacists and even allowing Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups and individuals to sway public policy. The only positive aspect of the M-103 “anti-Islamophobia” ordeal was the open and widespread rejection of it by Canadians of every race and religious background.

Iran Faces Stricter Sanctions in Bipartisan House, Senate Bills

March 25, 2017

Iran Faces Stricter Sanctions in Bipartisan House, Senate Bills, Washington Free Beacon, March 25, 2017

Getty Images

Menendez told Reuters the bipartisan group “assiduously worked” to ensure the bill does not violate the Iranian nuclear pact enacted last year. The bill only applies to Iran’s non-nuclear activities.

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

Legislation introduced Thursday in the House and Senate by a bipartisan group of lawmakers would hit Iran with tougher sanctions for the ongoing development of its ballistic missile program.

While Washington focused on the health care saga in the House, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Bob Corker (R., Tenn.), quietly introduced a new bill that would impose mandatory sanctions on individuals involved with Iran’s ballistic missile program.

The legislation would expand terrorism-related sanctions to include the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Tehran’s elite military force. The bill would codify sanctions announced by the Treasury Department last month that applied to anyone tied to Iran’s support for terrorism.

The bill has support from more than a dozen senators, including Democratic co-sponsors Ben Cardin (Md.), Robert Menendez (N.J.), Bob Casey (Pa.), and Chris Coons (Del.). Republican backers include Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.), Tom Cotton (Ark.), James Risch (Idaho), and Dan Sullivan (Alaska).

Menendez told Reuters the bipartisan group “assiduously worked” to ensure the bill does not violate the Iranian nuclear pact enacted last year. The bill only applies to Iran’s non-nuclear activities.

The bill is expected to pass through the Senate given its broad support.

The chairman and ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ed Royce (R., Calif.) and Eliot Engel (D., N.Y.), introduced a similar bill late Thursday in the lower chamber.

Like the Senate version, the House legislation would target individuals and entities involved in Iran’s ballistic missile development, including foreign companies and banks.

A staffer with the House Foreign Affairs Committee told the Washington Free Beacon on Friday that the legislation’s strong bipartisan support would likely propel it to the House floor. Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D., Md.) are both cosponsoring the bill.

The staffer, who asked not to be named, said the bill was introduced in response to a recent committee hearing that detailed Tehran’s ongoing development of missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons.

“Under the cover of a deeply-flawed nuclear deal, Iran has accelerated its ballistic missile development,” Royce said in a statement Thursday. “These tests—carried out in defiance of the U.N. Security Council—are aimed at perfecting the delivery system for a nuclear warhead.”

Both bills were introduced ahead of the annual conference in D.C. by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which begins Sunday. Iran has not commented on the bills, but has said in the past that any U.S. sanctions are a violation of the nuclear agreement.

The White House said in February it was “putting Iran on notice” before unveiling sanctions against 25 entities and individuals in Iran who have ties to terrorist groups, including Hezbollah. The sanctions were in response to a Jan. 29 missile test by Iran. Tehran immediately threatened retaliation.

Satire | Jamie Glazov Moment: How Not to Blame Islam for the Jihad in London.

March 25, 2017

Jamie Glazov Moment: How Not to Blame Islam for the Jihad in London via YouTube, March 24, 2017

ISIS U-Turns West to Lebanon as Next Target

March 25, 2017

Source: ISIS U-Turns West to Lebanon as Next Target

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report March 25, 2017, 11:12 AM (IDT)

American helicopters Thursday and Friday, March 23-24, dropped Kurdish and Arab fighters over a region west of the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa. Those forces quickly captured at least five villages and so cut jihadist concentrations in the northwestern Syria off from their Raqqa stronghold. debkafile’s military sourcesreport this operation was the opening shot of the US-led campaign to isolate the Islamic State’s Syrian capital before storming it.

Raqqa’s liberation is not expected to encounter the same fierce ISIS resistance as the US-led Iraqi army is facing in Mosul. That is partly because the town has gradually emptied of fighting forces ever since ISIS chiefs saw that their time was running out. Instead, ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi and his strategists, Iraqi ex-generals, effected a major U-turn: the  jihadists fleeing the Syrian and Iraqi fronts, instead of heading for the ISIS bastions in Deir ez-Zour in eastern Syria and Abu Kamal in western Iraqi Anbar province, were given new orders to head in the opposite direction for their next destination: Lebanon.

This is a radical change from their former orders to reassemble in the two towns, which straddle the Iraqi-Syrian border and have commanded the Al Qa’im crossing and ISIS supply routes ever since June 2014. Both towns are located in virtual desert regions through which any approaching enemies are visible from afar. Moreover, the dense vegetation of the Euphrates river banks and nearby forests are effective cover for surreptitious movements against aerial and satellite surveillance.

American and Iraqi intelligence agencies are sure that Al-Baghdad and his top lieutenants are hiding in one of the two towns or in a safe house between them. So why are they are ready to give up these strategic safe havens, after building them up for two years, and suddenly sending their fugitive fighters after new turf?,

  • ISIS leaders see fresh prey in Lebanon’s weak government and army.
  • Lebanon which is chronically beset with conflicts among the Sunni, Hizballah-Shiite and Christian communities offers a vulnerable playing field for ISIS inroads.
  • Lebanon’s second largest town of Tripoli, 85km north of Beirut, a strongly Sunni city with a Mediterranean port, is one promising ISIS target.
  • Another is Sidon, its third largest city, located 40km south of Beirut on the southern Mediterranean coast. An added advantage is its proximity to the Israeli border, no more than 60km north of Naharia, the closest the Islamic State has ever come to a Israeli town.
    Adjoining Sidon, which has a core population of 90,000, is the Palestinian refugee camp-town of Ain Hilwa, among whose quarter of a million inmates ISIS has already planted cells – both overt and sleepers.
  • ISIS leaders now conclude that their Iraqi-Syria border strongholds may prove too hard to secure when, according to their reckoning, they come under American or Russian guns. Foreign powers are less likely to intervene militarily to take on a terrorist organization in unstable Lebanon.
  • They would gain a new vantage point for hitting Syrian, Iranian and Hizballah forces fighting in Syria from the rear.

debkafile’s sources reveal that American and Israeli intelligence services conveyed a warning to the new Lebanese President Michel Aoun earlier this month with details of the ISIS conspiracy to overrun parts of his country, as it did Iraq and Syria three years ago.

Report: US, Russia agree to help Israel ‘expel’ Iran from Syria

March 25, 2017

Source: Report: US, Russia agree to help Israel ‘expel’ Iran from Syria – Arab-Israeli Conflict – Jerusalem Post

ByJPOST.COM STAFF
March 25, 2017 13:29

Israel hopes, with the help of Russia and the United States, that enough pressure can be placed on Iranian-backed militias to the point where they can be removed.
Mount Bental

Girls play near a sign at Mount Bental, an observation post on the Israeli side of the Golan Heights, overlooking the Syrian side of the Kuneitra crossing. (photo credit:REUTERS/BAZ RATNER)

The United States, Russia and Israel have reportedly reached a consensus on the need to restrict and eventually expel pro-Iranian forces from gaining influence in Syria, the Kuwati daily newspaper Al-Rai reported Saturday.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to the Arab outlet, has reached an understanding with Washington and Moscow that pro-Iranian forces, including Lebanese terror organization Hezbollah, constitute an “existential threat” to the Jewish state.

This threat, therefore, necessitates Israeli action in Syria, including conducting airstrikes and other assaults to keep weapons and advancing militias as far as possible from Israel’s northern border.

According to anonymous US officials who spoke to the Kuwaiti publication, Israel’s targeting of pro-Iranian forces in the South of Syria is being accompanied by Russian pressure in the center and North to help stabilize the country. Russia is also reportedly open to withdrawing its forces in certain areas, leaving the Syrian army loyal to President Bashar Assad to take over.

Israel hopes, with the help of Russia and the United States, that this pressure will help weaken pro-Iranian military entities to the point where they can be removed from the battle-scarred nation.

But Iran’s meddling in the Syrian Civil War, which has raged for nearly six-years now and has claimed over 400,000 lives, makes that a difficult proposition, one US senior official told Al-Rai. Theran helped prop up the Assad regime soon after civil strife broke out in 2011, giving them a foothold in Damascus.

This has officials in Jerusalem worried, who loath to see a Iranian presence so close to Israeli territory. So It remains to be seen what calculations Assad and Russia have for the pro-Iranian presence in Syria and whether or not their influence can be abated.

Israel has publicly admitted that it has previously conducted assaults in Syria, an unusual step for a country known for its reticence concerning military operations.

Just recently, while on a state visit to China, Netanyahu reiterated that the Israel Air Force will continue to execute missions in Syria to contain threats against the country, and said he made this clear to Russian President Vladimir Putin when the two leaders met in Moscow earlier this month.

“We attack if we have information and have operational feasibility,” Netanyahu stated, adding: “This will continue.”

As a Muslim, I am Shocked by Liberals and Leftists

March 25, 2017

As a Muslim, I am Shocked by Liberals and Leftists, Gatestone InstituteMajid Rafizadeh, March 25, 2017

(Please see also, Dr. Majid Rafizadeh: Why the Islamist State of Iran is So Dangerous. — DM)

It is the fear of this violence, torture and death, wielded by extremist Muslims, that keeps every person desperate to obey.

If liberals are in favor of freedom of speech, why do they turn a blind eye to Islamist governments such as Iran, which execute people for expressing their opinion? And why do they not let people in the West express their opinion without attacking them or even giving them the respect of hearing what they have to say? They seem, in fact, like the autocratic people from whom I was fleeing, who also did not want their simplistic, binary way of thinking to be threatened by logic or fact.

As, in Islam, one is not allowed to attack except to defend the prophet or Islam, extremist Muslims need to keep finding or creating supposed attacks to make themselves appear as victims.

Finally, a short message to liberals might go: Dear Liberal, If you truly stand for values such as peace, social justice, liberty and freedoms, your apologetic view of radical Islam is in total contradiction with all of those values. Your view even hinders the efforts of many Muslims to make a peaceful reformation in Islam precisely to advance the those values.

If you had grown up, as I did, between two authoritarian governments — the Islamic Republic of Iran and Syria — under the leadership of people such as Hafez al Assad, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, you would have seen your youth influenced by two major denominations of Islam in the Muslim world: the Shia and the Sunni. I studied both, and at one point was even a devout Muslim. My parents, who still live in Iran and Syria, come from two different ethnic Muslim groups: Arab and Persian.

You also would have seen how the religion of Islam intertwines with politics, and how radical Islam rules a society through its religious laws, sharia. You would have witnessed how radical Islam can dominate and scrutinize people’s day-to-day choices: in eating, clothing, socializing, entertainment, everything.

You would have seen the tentacles of its control close over every aspect of your life. You would have seen the way, wielded by fundamentalists, radical Islam can be a powerful tool for unbridled violence. It is the fear of this violence, torture, and death, wielded by extremist Muslims, that keeps every person desperate to obey.

My father was brutally tortured — justified by some of the fundamentalist Islamic laws of the ruling governments in both Iran and Syria. The punishment extended to my mother, my family, and other relatives, who were tormented on a regular basis.

What was even more painful was, upon coming to the West, seeing the attitude of many people who label themselves liberals and leftists, towards radical Islam.

These liberals seem to view themselves as open-minded, but they have a preconceived way of thinking about Islam: to them, it seems, there is no radical Islam, Islam is only a force for the good, Islam can do no evil.

How could they not see the way extremist Muslims exploit some aspects of the religion of Islam to legitimize its acts? How could they not even acknowledge that radical Islam, a force that threatens to destroy the planet, let alone my family, exists?

Instead, many liberals would criticize me or attempt to turn a blind eye, as if I were accidentally making some embarrassing mistake. They seemed instead to love being surrounded by Western Muslim “scholars”, those who are apologetic towards radical Islam and — notably — have never actually lived in a Muslim country under the strangling grip of the official fundamentalist laws, sharia.

Why do many liberals, who criticize Christianity and religious conviction in general, appear to open their arms to radical Islam so affectionately? Why are so many liberals, who call themselves the robust defenders of peace, social justice, and freedoms, apologetic for all types of fundamentalist Islamist laws?

If, as liberals argue, they support women’s and LGBT rights, why, by their silence, do they condone gays executed and women subjugated on a daily basis throughout most of the enormous Muslim world? If liberals are in favor of freedom of speech, why do they turn a blind eye to Islamist governments such as Iran that, based on the government’s radical, theocratic laws, execute people for expressing their opinion? And why do they not let people in the West express their opinion without attacking them before even giving them the respect of hearing what they have to say?

Liberals argue that they are in favor of critical thinking, but they do not like anyone challenging their “comfort zone”. They seem, in fact, to be just like the autocratic people from whom I was fleeing, who also did not want their simplistic, binary way of thinking to be threatened by logic or fact.

Even if a person is from a Muslim country, and has direct experience with extremist Islam, many liberals will strenuously avoid this information. They seem not to want their apologetic view of radical Islam to be questioned or contradicted. They apparently have no desire to open their closed minds on the subject. The thought of a question evidently wounds them, as if an answer would mean that they were turning their backs on the ongoing crimes against humanity. How come, then, that so many liberals appear resistant to seeing that the crimes of radical Islam are those crimes against humanity? And at present, the largest?

Second, these liberals — indulging in faulty, sophisitic, logic — seem to think that if they criticize Christianity and Islamists criticize Christianity, then Islamists will like them for hating the same thing. In the same vein, many liberals hate the U.S. Republican government and many radical Muslim groups hate the U.S. Republican government, so perhaps many liberals think that Muslims will like them for hating the same government? Sadly, as these liberals will soon find out, the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.

Third, and more fundamentally, sympathizing with all kinds of Islamist practices and radical Islam seems to fit a wider narrative of bashing the West and white people for “imperialism, colonialism, and any sense of superiority”. Unfortunately that view fails to take into account that there have been no greater imperialists the Muslim armies; they conquered Persia, the great Christian Byzantine Empire in Turkey, North Africa and the Middle East, virtually all of Eastern Europe, most of Spain, and Greece.

As, in Islam, one is not allowed to attack except to defend the prophet Muhammed or Islam, extremist Muslims need to keep either finding or creating supposed attacks to make themselves appear as victims.

Anjem Choudary, a radical British Muslim cleric, was sentenced late last year by a British judge to five and a half years in prison for encouraging people to join the Islamic State. (Image source: Dan H/Flickr)

Many liberals, not knowing the background, buy into this claim. By siding with the “other”, they probably feel a moral superiority: they are helping a cause, championing the “other” and rescuing a “victim”! But this moral superiority is both superficial and misplaced. It is more like that of the proverbial boy who murders his parents and then asks the judge for mercy because he is an orphan.

Maybe that is why, when many liberals hear criticism of radical Islam and the nuances of some aspects it, they refuse to hear it. For them, as radical Islam is not being depicted as a victim anymore, this view does not offer them the comfort of being morally superior defending victims. Ironically, that is the same motive for many radical Islamists: feeling morally superior defending Islam. The liberals then become confused, and do not know how to answer because I am a Muslim, have grown up there — not a Western Muslim who has never lived in a Muslim society. I am not even a Western conservative, with whom the liberals are also at odds. Many liberals, like all people happily married to a fantasy, and despite towering evidence, will stick to the fantasy and to their binary way of thinking. It is like trying to tell your friend that the stripper he wants to marry might not want to stay home, make babies and cook. He is so emotionally addicted to his dream that he will do anything to protect it.

Finally, it goes without saying that, as with all of us, liberals too attempt to preserve their financial and political interests. These material and social investments are also threatened by hearing from Muslims who have endured oppression and torture under radical Islam. Those liberals seem to suspect, correctly, that this new information might create some kind of conflict of interest, so possibly decide it might be safer not to hear it in the first place. Instead, again to protect their investment, many liberals and leftists ignore or criticize Muslims such as these.

Finally, a short message to liberals might go: Dear Liberal, If you truly stand for values such as peace, social justice, liberty and freedoms, your apologetic view of radical Islam is in total contradiction with all of those values. Your view even hinders the efforts of many Muslims to make a peaceful reformation in Islam precisely to advance the those values. In addition, sadly, your view towards radical Islam actually contributes to the violence and the repression of millions of people — women, children, slaves, and all those people whom you claim you want to protect. These are the true victims. They are subjugated, dehumanized, terrorized, tortured, raped and beaten on a daily basis by the practitioners of radical Islam and the religious laws of sharia, which are at the core of that fundamentalism. It is time to open your eyes and your minds and see what is staring at you.