France: A Guide to the Presidential Elections

Posted April 22, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: French elections
Tags:

France: A Guide to the Presidential Elections, Gatestone Institute, Soeren Kern, April 22, 2017

“What poses a problem is not Islam, but certain behaviors that are said to be religious and then imposed on persons who practice that religion.” — Emmanuel Macron

“Those who come to France are to accept France, not to transform it to the image of their country of origin. If they want to live at home, they should have stayed at home.” — Marine Le Pen

“It [France] is one nation that has a right to choose who can join it and a right that foreigners accept its rules and customs. — François Fillon

Jean-Luc Mélenchon has called for a massive increase in public spending, a 90% tax on anyone earning more than €400,000 ($425,000) a year, and an across-the-board increase in the minimum wage by 16% to €1,326 ($1,400) net a month, based on a 35-hour work week.

Benoît Hamon has promised to establish a universal basic income: he wants to pay every French citizen over 18, regardless of whether or not they are employed, a government-guaranteed monthly income of €750 ($800). The annual cost to taxpayers would be €400 billion ($430 billion). By comparison, France’s 2017 defense budget is €32.7 billion ($40 billion).

Voters in France will go to the polls on April 23 to choose the country’s next president in a two-step process. The top two winners in the first round will compete in a run-off on May 7.

The election is being closely followed in France and elsewhere as an indicator of popular discontent with mainstream parties and the European Union, as well as with multiculturalism and continued mass migration from the Muslim world.

If the election were held today, independent centrist candidate Emmanuel Macron, who has never held elected office, would become the next president of France, according to most opinion polls.

An Ifop-Fiducial poll released on April 21 showed that Macron would win the first round with 24.5% of the votes, followed by Marine Le Pen, the leader of the anti-establishment National Front party, with 22.5%. Conservative François Fillon is third (19.5%), followed by Leftist firebrand Jean-Luc Mélenchon (18.5%) and radical Socialist Benoît Hamon (7%).

If the poll numbers are accurate, the two established parties, the Socialist Party and the center-right Republicans, would, for the first time, be eliminated in the first round.

In the second round, Macron, a pro-EU, pro-Islam globalist, would defeat Le Pen, an anti-EU, anti-Islam French nationalist, by a wide margin (61% to 39%), according to the poll.

Nevertheless, most polls show that the race is tightening, and that two candidates who up until recently were considered also-rans — Fillon, who has been mired in a corruption scandal, and Mélenchon, who has performed well in recent presidential debates — are narrowing the lead that Macron and Le Pen have over them.

An Elabe poll for BMFTV and L’Express released on April 21 showed Macron at 24%, Le Pen at 21.5%, Fillon at 20% and Mélenchon at 19.5%.

The numbers indicate that neither Macron nor Le Pen can be absolutely certain they will proceed to the May 7 runoff. It remains to be seen if the April 20 jihadist attack on three policemen in Paris will bolster support for either Fillon or Le Pen, both of whom have pledged to crack down on radical Islam, and both of whom are competing for many of the same voters. Adding to the uncertainty: Some 40% of French voters remain undecided.

Following are the main policy positions of the top five candidates:

Emmanuel Macron

Macron, 39, a former investment banker, was an adviser to incumbent Socialist President François Hollande. If elected, he would be France’s youngest president. A long-time member of the Socialist Party, Macron served in Hollande’s cabinet for two years as economy minister until August 2016, when he resigned to launch his own political movement, En Marche! (On the move!).

Macron, whose core base of support consists of young, urban progressives, has been called the “French Obama.” He insists that he is neither left nor right and has tried to position himself in the political center, between the Socialists and the conservatives — and as an alternative to Le Pen’s populism.

Macron is business friendly and has called for cutting corporate taxes and for investing in infrastructure. He sparked outrage in February when he described France’s colonial legacy in Algeria as a “crime against humanity.”

His meteoric rise has been propelled by a scandal which has damaged the standing of Republican candidate François Fillon, and because the Socialists fielded Benoît Hamon, an unpopular candidate.

Macron’s policy positions (platform here) include:

  • European Federalism: Macron has repeatedly called for a stronger European Union. At a January 14 political rally in Lille, he said: “We are Europe, we are Brussels, we wanted it and we need it. We need Europe because Europe makes us bigger, because Europe makes us stronger.”
  • Immigration: Macron has repeatedly praised German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s open-door migration policy, which has allowed more than two million mostly Muslim migrants into Germany since January 2015.

In a January 1, 2017 interview with Süddeutsche Zeitung, Macron accused critics of Merkel’s open-door migration policy of “disgraceful oversimplification.” He said: “Merkel and German society as a whole exemplified our common European values. They saved our collective dignity by accepting, accommodating and educating distressed refugees.”

In a February 4 rally in Lyon, Macron mocked U.S. President Donald Trump’s pledge to build a wall with Mexico: “I do not want to build a wall. I can assure you there is no wall in my program. Can you remember the Maginot Line?” he said, referring to a failed row of fortifications that France built in the 1930s to deter an invasion by Germany.

  • Islamic Terrorism: Macron has said he believes the solution to jihadist terrorism is more European federalism: “Terrorism wants to destroy Europe. We must quickly create a sovereign Europe that is capable of protecting us against external dangers in order to better ensure internal security. We also need to overcome national unwillingness and create a common European intelligence system that will allow the effective hunting of criminals and terrorists.”
  • Islam: Macron has said he believes that French security policy has unfairly targeted Muslims and that “secularism should not be brandished to as a weapon to fight Islam.” At an October 2016 rally in Montpellier, he rejected President Hollande’s assertion that “France has a problem with Islam.” Instead, Macron said: “No religion is a problem in France today. If the state should be neutral, which is at the heart of secularism, we have a duty to let everybody practice their religion with dignity.” He also insisted that the Islamic State is not Islamic: “What poses a problem is not Islam, but certain behaviors that are said to be religious and then imposed on persons who practice that religion.”

Marine Le Pen

Le Pen, 48, a former lawyer and the youngest daughter of Jean-Marie Le Pen, the founder of the National Front party, has campaigned on a nationalist platform. She has called for a referendum on pulling France out of the European Union, abandoning the euro single currency, halting immigration and restore controls at French borders.

Le Pen, who has been called the “French Trump,” has vowed to fight radical Islam, close extremist mosques and forcibly deport illegal immigrants.

On March 2, the European Parliament voted to lift Le Pen’s immunity from prosecution for tweeting images of Islamic State violence. Under French law, publishing violent images can be punished by up to three years in prison and a fine of €75,000 euros ($79,000). Le Pen posted the images in response to a journalist who compared her party’s anti-immigration stance to the Islamic State. She denounced the legal proceedings against her as political interference in the campaign and called for a moratorium on judicial investigations until the election period has passed.

Le Pen is also under investigation for allegedly misusing EU funds to pay for party staff, including a personal bodyguard. She has denied any wrongdoing and said the investigation was aimed at undermining her campaign. “The French can tell the difference between genuine scandals and political dirty tricks,” she said.

Le Pen’s policy positions (platform here) include:

  • European Federalism: “Everyone agrees that the European Union is a failure. It did not deliver on any of its promises, particularly on prosperity and security…. That is why, if elected, I will announce a referendum within six months on remaining or exiting the European Union…”
  • Immigration: Le Pen has said that she wants to cut immigration to no more than 10,000 people a year. She has also called on migrants to adapt to French culture: “Those who come to France are to accept France, not to transform it to the image of their country of origin. If they want to live at home, they should have stayed at home.”
  • Islamic Terrorism: Le Pen has repeatedly vowed to crack down on Islamic terrorism. On February 5, she said: “In terms of terrorism, we do not intend to ask the French to get used to living with this horror. We will eradicate it here and abroad.” After the April 20 jihadist attack in Paris, she reiterated: “We must tackle the root of the evil. It is Islamist fundamentalism, the ideology that their terrorists are harnessing.”
  • Islam: Le Pen has vowed to restrict the practice of Islam in the public square. She wants to ban all visible religious symbols worn in public, including Muslim headscarves and Jewish skullcaps. She has compared Muslims praying in the streets to Nazi occupation: “For those who want to talk a lot about World War II, if it is about occupation, then we could also talk about it [Muslim prayers in the streets], because that is occupation of territory. It is an occupation of sections of the territory, of districts in which religious laws apply. It is an occupation. There are of course no tanks, there are no soldiers but it is nevertheless an occupation and it weighs heavily on local residents.”

François Fillon

Fillon, 63, a former Prime Minister under President Nicolas Sarkozy and now the Republican candidate for France’s 2017 presidential election, has pledged to defend traditional French values and identity. “This country is the daughter of Christianity, as well as the Enlightenment,” Fillon has said. “I will put the family back at the heart of all public policy.”

Fillon, who has been called the “French Thatcher” for his conservative policies, wants to end France’s 35-hour work week, cut public spending by €100 billion ($107 billion), shrink the size of government by cutting 500,000 civil service positions, abolish a wealth tax and reduce immigration. He also wants to invest heavily in national security.

Fillon had been favored to win this race until he became the subject of a criminal investigation over allegations that he used government money to pay his wife and children more than €1 million ($1.1 million) for jobs they never did. He faces charges of embezzlement.

Fillon’s policy positions (platform here) include:

  • European Federalism: Fillon has said that he is not in favor of more European integration. In an essay for Le Monde, he wrote: “Let’s put aside the dream of a federal Europe. It is urgent to re-establish a more political functioning, so Europe can focus its action on well-defined strategic priorities.”
  • Immigration: Fillon has called for quotas limiting immigration based on the capacity to integrate. At a rally in Nice on January 11, he said: “France is generous, but it is not a mosaic and a territory without limits. It is one nation that has a right to choose who can join it and a right that foreigners accept its rules and customs. We have six million unemployed and nearly nine million poor people. Immigration must be firmly controlled and reduced to a strict minimum.”
  • Islam: Fillon has vowed to exert “strict administrative control” over Islam in France. He has also described radical Islam as a “totalitarianism like the Nazis.” After the April 20 jihadist attacks, Fillon repeated his pledge to crack down on radical Islam. “Any movement claiming Salafism and the Muslim Brotherhood will be dissolved,” he said.

Jean-Luc Mélenchon

Mélenchon, 65, is head of the newly-established La France Insoumise (“Unsubmissive France”), a political movement supported by the Left Party and the French Communist Party. Mélenchon, who has been called the “French Bernie Sanders,” has campaigned on an anti-capitalist, anti-globalization platform and vowed to put an end to “economic liberalism.” He has called for a massive increase in public spending, a 90% tax on anyone earning more than €400,000 ($425,000) a year, and an across-the-board increase in the minimum wage by 16% to €1,326 ($1,400) net a month, based on a 35-hour work week.

Mélenchon’s policy positions (platform here) include:

  • European Federalism: Mélenchon has pledged to redefine France’s future relationship with the European Union. He has promised to negotiate a “democratic reconstruction” of European treaties, and to withdraw from the EU if it fails to meet his demands. “Europe, we’ll change it or leave it,” he said during an interview with France 2 television on April 7. He has also questioned France’s continued use of the euro single currency.
  • Immigration: Mélenchon is opposed to immigration quotas. He called for undocumented workers to be legalized. He has called for re-establishing a ten-year residence permit for foreigners, and for all children born in France to obtain automatic citizenship.

Benoît Hamon

Hamon, 49, the Socialist Party nominee, was a former education minister under President Hollande but quit the government in protest of its pro-market policies. Although he defeated former Prime Minister Manuel Valls, a party heavyweight, in the primary run-off on January 29 by a margin of 58% to 42%, he is now polling last among the top five candidates.

Hamon has promised to establish a universal basic income: he wants to pay every French citizen over 18, regardless of whether or not they are employed, a government-guaranteed monthly income of €750 ($800). The annual cost to taxpayers would be €400 billion ($430 billion). By comparison, France’s 2017 defense budget is €32.7 billion ($40 billion).

Hamon, who has been called the “French Jeremy Corbyn,” in reference to the leader of the British Labour Party, also wants reduce the French work week from 35 to 32 hours and make it more difficult for companies to fire people. He wants to legalize cannabis and impose a tax on robots and computers; the tax would apply to any technology that takes away jobs from humans.

Hamon’s policy positions (platform here) include:

  • European Federalism: Hamon favors further European integration, especially on social issues. He has also called for “a process of social convergence with a national minimum wage set at 60% of each country’s average wage.” He has also called for the reformation of eurozone governance. “Only a complete revision of the European treaties could give the eurozone an institutional framework capable of correcting the founding mistakes of the Economic and Monetary Union,” he wrote in a policy paper.
  • Immigration: Hamon has said that France does not have an immigration problem. In an interview with Le Parisien, he said: “Immigrants now occupy low-skilled jobs for which there is little competition with French workers. I think our country does not have an immigration problem.” Hamon favors “a more equitable” distribution of asylum seekers in Europe and believes that France can accommodate more. He wants to allow migrants to obtain work permits after three months of being present in France. He has called for doubling the number of asylum seeker reception centers.
  • Islam: Hamon has come under fire for appearing to turn a blind eye to Islamic customs. In December 2016, after France 2 broadcast undercover television footage of daily life in Sevran, a heavily Islamized suburb of Paris, Hamon defended the Muslim practice of prohibiting women from entering bars and cafés. “Historically, there were never women in the coffee shops,” he said. He added that “the French Republic is to blame for the fact that there are social ghettos where today public spaces can be off limits to women.”

Comments: Be the first to comment

Cartoons and Video of the Day

Posted April 22, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Humor
Tags:

Capitol Steps via YouTube — I’ve posted this before, but it gets more relevant each time.

 

H/t Power Line

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments: Be the first to comment

From Russia With Crud (2)

Posted April 22, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Democrats and Trump, Media and Trump, Obama and Russia, Trump and Russia, Trump Derangement Syndrome
Tags: , , , ,

From Russia With Crud (2), Power Line, Scott Johnson, April 22, 2017

When the Trump campaign (allegedly) conspired with Putin to engineer the unlikely defeat of Hillary Clinton, did Putin get anything in return? Apparently not. The story line doesn’t hang together. In the world according to the Democrats, however, if the facts don’t fit you must not acquit. You must recommit.

Two months ago the sober Hudson Institute Distinguished Fellow and foreign policy historian Walter Russell Mead impolitely noted that “Trump isn’t sounding like a Russian mole.” Trump had remarked “effusively” to Reuters on the importance of expanding the American nuclear arsenal. Mead commented: “What the press has largely ignored about Trump’s latest pronouncement is an obvious truth that undermines its own narrative: someone who was safely in Vladimir Putin’s pocket wouldn’t run around saying things like this.”

Mead must have wanted to provoke the Democrats’ idiotic media adjunct. He enlarged to telling effect on this point. Like the little boy who declined to praise the magnificence of the emperor’s invisible finery, Mead blurted out:

If Trump were the Manchurian candidate that people keep wanting to believe that he is, here are some of the things he’d be doing:

• Limiting fracking as much as he possibly could
• Blocking oil and gas pipelines
• Opening negotiations for major nuclear arms reductions
• Cutting U.S. military spending
• Trying to tamp down tensions with Russia’s ally Iran

That Trump is planning to do precisely the opposite of these things may or may not be good policy for the United States, but anybody who thinks this is a Russia appeasement policy has been drinking way too much joy juice.

Mead wasn’t done yet. He contrasted Trump’s announced policies with Obama’s actual policies:

Obama actually did all of these things, and none of the liberal media now up in arms about Trump ever called Obama a Russian puppet; instead, they preferred to see a brave, farsighted and courageous statesman. Trump does none of these things and has embarked on a course that will inexorably weaken Russia’s position in the world, and the media, suddenly flushing eight years of Russia dovishness down the memory hole, now sounds the warning that Trump’s Russia policy is treasonously soft.

This foolishness is best understood as an unreasoning panic attack. The liberal media hate Trump more than they have hated any American politician in a generation, and they do not understand his supporters or the sources of his appeal. They are frantically picking up every available stick to beat him, in the hopes that something, somehow, will Miloize him.

Only last week we had Secretary Tillerson’s press conference with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov (text here). Fulfilling Obama’s mocking gibe to Mitt Romney, the 1980’s seemed to have gotten their foreign policy back.

Yesterday Politico reported the Trump administration has announced that it would not grant a waiver from Russian sanctions to Exxon Mobil or any other energy companies. Ben Lefebvre explains: “The Treasury Department announcement follows reports that Exxon had been seeking such a waiver to drill in the Black Sea.”

The concise statement by Treasury Secretary Mnuchin is calculated to rub it in: “In consultation with President Donald J. Trump, the Treasury Department will not be issuing waivers to U.S. companies, including Exxon, authorizing drilling prohibited by current Russian sanctions.”

Has anyone among the Democrats’ idiotic media adjunct paused to note that the Russians aren’t getting their (alleged) money’s worth?

NOTE: I was reminded of Mead’s point summary of Obama’s policies by John O’Sullivan’s recent article in National Review as well as O’Sullivan’s NRO post on Trump’s State of the Union speech.

 

Comments: Be the first to comment

Welcoming the Caliphate to Brazil

Posted April 22, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Brazil, European Union, Islam in Latin America, Islamic immigration, Latin American union, Leftists and Islam, Open borders
Tags: , , , , , ,

Welcoming the Caliphate to Brazil, Gates of Vienna, , April 21, 2017

(A clone of the European Union — open borders, unlimited immigration and the more Islamists the better — seems to be coming to Latin America. — DM) 

Most of the Left in Brazil is anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and Pro-Palestinian. Add to the equation the inherent animosity against the USA (accused of helping the military in 1964) and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and al-Khadafi, as well as their sympathy for Iran, and you have open doors for any Islamic leader to the high echelons of power.

Since the late 1990s there has been a growing presence of Saudi and UAE support for an exponential effort in building mosques and madrassas, even though the number of Muslims remains small (official records mention fewer than 100,000 whereas Islamic leaders mention two million).

There has been also an increase in the number of visits by Islamic leaders of any kind to government officials at state, municipal and federal levels. There has also been increasing activity dealing with public safety, including the arrest of several Muslims accused of terror plots, as well as increasing activity of Hezbollah in connection with organized crime.

The main intention of the Brazilian Left is the “continental integration”, i.e., that South America becomes a single Socialist entity (they have Venezuela as a model, seriously).

The mayor of São Paulo, João Dória, a Social Democrat, is selling municipal assets under the excuse that he wants to improve services. Where did he go to advertise them? To the Gulf countries. He is a strong presidential candidate for the elections next year. The prospects are not good.

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

The following article about Brazil’s new open-borders law was published last night at Vlad Tepes.

New immigration law opens Brazil’s borders to drug trafficking and the Islamic Caliphate

by José Atento

This article deals with the situation of the Islamization of Brazil in light of the new Law of Immigration, approved by the country’s Senate and sent for presidential signing. It highlights steps that have been taken to increase the nonexistent Islamic presence in Brazil into become an influential power. To understand the situation one needs to understand the deterioration of the political landscape of the country, which is briefly discussed in the course of the article (keeping in mind that politics in Brazil has a huge complicating factor: endemic corruption).

During an Islamic conference in Chicago in 2008 I heard the audio of a speech from an Imam in which he described how Brazil would become an Islamic nation within 50 years. I was aware of what was happening in the West but I thought that Brazil would not be in the axis of Islamic interest. I was wrong. After all, Brazil is the powerhouse of South America not just due to the size of the country (remember, Brazil is larger than the US without Alaska) but also due to the size of its economy and influence. It is said that where Brazil goes so goes South America. Indeed.

In 1964 a democratic but USSR-leaning government was overthrown by the Brazilian military under the pretext of keeping Brazil from becoming a “New Cuba.” The military regime remained in power, relinquishing it slowly under pressure from a democratic front that encompassed politicians, civil society and the Brazilian Roman Catholic bishops, most of them adherents of the Liberation Theology. During this time communist-style guerrilla warfare took place and several of the guerrilla leaders ended up deported, mostly to Chile (under Allende), Cuba or France. In 1988, a new Constitution was promulgated and in 1989 presidential elections were held. The guerrilla leaders returned to the country under an amnesty law and joined a number of pro-Socialist parties. The most notable of them was the Labor Party (PT), led by the union leader Lula da Silva, who was compared by many to Lech Walesa and Václav Havel. The difference is that unlike Walesa and Havel, Lula wanted Socialism and Globalism.

The new civilian regime reached its apex during the presidency of Fernando Cardoso (1995-2003), of the also Left-leaning Social Democrats (PSDB). He controlled inflation and led the country to phenomenal growth, even though under accusations of rampant corruption. Lula da Silva was elected in 2003, remaining in power until 2011. He used the economic legacy of his predecessor, creating his own corruption base in an attempt to solidify power. His goal was to keep the Labor Party in permanent control of the Federal Government. He was followed by Dilma Roussef in 2012, but the economy did not survive 8 years of Lula da Silva and corruption that reached unprecedented levels. The corruption was made public by a few young and courageous judges in what has been know as Operation Car Wash. Dilma Roussef was impeached, being replaced by her vice-president, Michel Temer.

It should be mentioned that since Fernando Cardoso’s presidency, Brazil has turned towards the Left and several former guerrilla members have become Ministers of State. It continues up to today under the current president.

Then enters the unholy alliance between the Left and Islam, Brazilian style.

Most of the Left in Brazil is anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and Pro-Palestinian. Add to the equation the inherent animosity against the USA (accused of helping the military in 1964) and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and al-Khadafi, as well as their sympathy for Iran, and you have open doors for any Islamic leader to the high echelons of power.

Since the late 1990s there has been a growing presence of Saudi and UAE support for an exponential effort in building mosques and madrassas, even though the number of Muslims remains small (official records mention fewer than 100,000 whereas Islamic leaders mention two million).

There has been also an increase in the number of visits by Islamic leaders of any kind to government officials at state, municipal and federal levels. There has also been increasing activity dealing with public safety, including the arrest of several Muslims accused of terror plots, as well as increasing activity of Hezbollah in connection with organized crime.

But Islam has not made an impact on the local population as its leaders would like. The only way for a faster growth is by fostering Muslim immigration to Brazil. There has been a concerted effort linking government officials, NGOs (e.g., funded by the likes of George Soros’ Open Society Foundation and the Ford Foundation), Christian groups and Islamic leaders to open the doors for more immigrants and refugees. The halal industry is a door, but not to import enough Muslims. Meet the new Law of Immigration.

Senator Aloysio Nunes, himself a former guerrilla fighter, now Minister of Foreign Affairs, is the author of this legislation that, among other things, destroys the borders of the country. The main intention of the Brazilian Left is the “continental integration”, i.e., that South America becomes a single Socialist entity (they have Venezuela as a model, seriously). So, the new legislation targets primarily the free transit of foreigners from bordering countries, giving them full citizenship rights. But anyone who comes to Brazil, even as tourist, can claim the same. The doors are open to anyone, from anywhere.

This law, in practical terms, leaves Brazilian migration policy in the hands of international organizations (for example, the UN and The Union of South American Nations [UNASUR]), without limiting the number of immigrants coming to Brazil. As the Minister of Justice said: there may be one thousand, ten thousand, one hundred thousand per year, everyone is welcome. It turns out that Brazil cannot provide for its people, with tens of millions living in poverty; how will it provide for “one hundred thousand refugees per year”?

This law guarantees that foreigners — anyone who wants to stay in Brazil — will have access to all services — public health services, welfare — as if they were Brazilians. But Brazil is not Sweden nor Germany. Who will pay this bill?

Visitors (tourists) are considered immigrants, with all rights, they just need to say so.

Foreigners are allowed to form political parties and trade unions. Who will they represent? Are they committed to the public common good or to external forces and entities?

The law allows the creation of “common spaces”. In this way several enclaves of foreigners will be created in the Brazilian territory. No-go zones, anyone?

By creating a borderless country, this law makes it more difficult to fight drug and arms trafficking, which is already a big problem. The control of criminals is compromised, because the law allows for the “non-criminalization of immigration”, ignoring the fact that illegal or dangerous immigrants and tourists exist!

Brazil is facing confrontations of the worst kind. A crisis of confidence, a moral crisis, an economic crisis, lack of employment with tens of millions of unemployed people, an overloading of social security, a serious crisis in its public health system, and an excessive tax burden that hampers economic prosperity. There are 60,000 murders per year, 38,000 rapes, and 7.6 million illegal weapons crossing our borders, and an undisputed level of power for organized crime and drug traffickers.

Laws that allow a world without borders have failed in Europe. We need to be honest and realistic. Humanitarian discourse will not survive the lack of employment, the prejudice that will arise in the melee of disputes for bread, medicine, crumbs thrown to the wind, and this law comes with wrong values, without looking at what is inside the door. To open our doors to the unknown world is to close the door to a life worthy of Brazilians.

Before proposing a law to accept hundreds of thousands of refugees and immigrants without controls and boundaries, our representatives should understand that any absorption of migration can only be made by those who have the conditions and under the criteria on which these conditions are sustained. But it seems that our representatives are no better than the European ones.

Considering that the European Union has already expressed its interest in relocating refugees outside of Europe, Brazil is in danger of becoming the sewer of the European Union.

Just one last thing. The mayor of São Paulo, João Dória, a Social Democrat, is selling municipal assets under the excuse that he wants to improve services. Where did he go to advertise them? To the Gulf countries. He is a strong presidential candidate for the elections next year. The prospects are not good.

Mayor of São Paulo offers city to Islamic capital

Comments: Be the first to comment

Assad’s Air Force Chemical Attack & Possible Link to Iran’s IRGC Ground Forces Operations

Posted April 22, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Iran - regime change, Iranian dissidents, Iranian resistance, Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Syria - chemical weapons attack
Tags: , , , ,

Assad’s Air Force Chemical Attack & Possible Link to Iran’s IRGC Ground Forces Operations, Iran News Update, April 21, 2017

“The goal of chemical attack on Khan Sheikhoun was changing the balance of power in favor of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards,” writes the NCRI, adding, “The IRGC conflict zone was on average 20 km away from Khan Sheikhoun.”

The National Council of Resistance of Iran writes,”The role of the clerical regime and the IRGC in recent chemical attack proves once again that the only way to end war and bloodshed in Syria is to evict the mullahs’ regime and to expel the IRGC and its mercenaries from the country.”

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

When looking at the events before and after Bashar al-Assad’s chemical attack on the town of Khan Sheikhoun, and the operations of Iranian Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) in the northern province of Hama, questions arise as to the goal of the attack.

Beginning March 21, 2017, the Free Syrian Army and the Syrian opposition began to advance in the north of Hama, and reached within three kilometers of the city of Hama. According to an article published by the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the IRGC dispatched its forces in Damascus and its suburbs, using its highest ranking commanders. These forces were present in the North and West of the city of Hama and around the town of Soran. They include battalions of the 19th Fajr Shiraz Division, battalions of the division known as Nabi Akram of Kermanshah, Saberine special battalions of Tehran province, and Ninawa brigade forces in Golestan province.

Dozens of IRGC forces and their mercenaries, including some IRGC commanders, were killed in the region less than two weeks before the chemical attack on Khan Sheikhoun. The NCRI reports that some of them include:

• Revolutionary Guards Corps Brigadier General Abdullah Khoshnoud from 19th Fajr Division on March 29 in the outskirts of Hama;

• Colonel Morad Abbasifar, from the division known as Nabi Akram who had close relationship with Qasem Soleimani, in late March in the town of Moardas in northeast of city of Hama;

• Mohammad Jannati known as Haj Haidar, a commander of the Revolutionary Guards in Syria, in late March in Tarabee near the city of Halfaya;

• Saeed Khaja Salehani, an IRGC officer, on March 25 in north of Hama;

• Hossein Moez Gholami of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Tehran, Abuzar Farahbakhsh and Ghodratollah Aboudi from 19th Fajr Division in Hama province.

A large number of Iraqi, Afghan and Pakistani mercenaries sent by the IRGC to Hama province were also killed. So high were the losses, that on March 31, four days before the chemical attack, Qassem Soleimani visited the IRGC forces to boost their morale.

“The goal of chemical attack on Khan Sheikhoun was changing the balance of power in favor of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards,” writes the NCRI, adding, “The IRGC conflict zone was on average 20 km away from Khan Sheikhoun.”

The IRGC forces continued their assault after the chemical attack, and last week, the bodies of a number of Afghan and Pakistani mercenaries were returned to Iran.

Bashar al-Assad’s ground force is weakened, and so offensive ground operations in Syria are now carried out by the IRGC, with support from Assad’s air force.

In his memoirs, Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Brigadier General Hossein Hamadani, who commanded the IRGC forces and was killed in October 2015 near the city of Aleppo, wrote, “In March 2013 (opposition) was quite close to a victory … they tightened the noose and got closer to the Syrian Presidential Palace such that they were set to occupy the palace… Bashar al-Assad also thought it was over and was pursuing to go to another country.” Hamadani goes on to tell how the IRGC saved Bashar al-Assad from being overthrown.

The National Council of Resistance of Iran writes,”The role of the clerical regime and the IRGC in recent chemical attack proves once again that the only way to end war and bloodshed in Syria is to evict the mullahs’ regime and to expel the IRGC and its mercenaries from the country.”

Comments: Be the first to comment

Venezuela: Maduro arms militia, bans civilian gun ownership

Posted April 22, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: civil war, Gun control, Maduro, Venezuela
Tags: , , ,

Venezuela: Maduro arms militia, bans civilian gun ownership, Rebel Media, April 21, 2017

(The demonstrations remind me of those in Egypt preceeding the ouster of Morsi. — DM)

 

Comments: Be the first to comment

Iran violating U.S. deal with secret nukes research, opposition group says

Posted April 21, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: IAEA, Iran compliance with JCPOA, Iran nuke inspections, Iran scam, Iran secret deals, Iranian military sites, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Iranian resistance
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Iran violating U.S. deal with secret nukes research, opposition group says, Washington Times, Rowan Scarborough, April 21, 2017

In this photo obtained from the Iranian Mehr News Agency, Iranian army members prepare missiles to be launched during a maneuver at an undisclosed location in Iran on Nov. 13, 2012. (AP Photo/Mehr News Agency, Majid Asgaripour) **FILE**

The council and MEK have a good track record over the years of disclosing Iranian nuke programs that operated under the radars of Western intelligence agencies. It boasts an extensive spying network inside the Defense Ministry, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and other organs of the hard-line Islamic state ruled by religious mullahs.

The MEK said METFAZ is operating in a secret location unbeknownst to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the world’s nuclear watchdog. In official communications, the regime refers to it as the code name “Research Academy.”

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

Iran is cheating on its historical deal with the U.S. by secretly conducting research into nuclear weapons components such as bomb triggers and enriched uranium, the main Iranian opposition group said Friday.

The regime is doing engineering and weaponization testing at a walled military complex south of Tehran, a location which Iran has declared off-limits to inspectors, said the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) and its main operational arm, the People’s Mujaheddin of Iran (MEK).

“This is the site that has been kept secret,” said Alireza Jafrazadeh, NCRI’s Washington office deputy director. “There is secret research to manufacture the bomb and basically cover up the real activities of the Iranian regime.”

The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), negotiated by the Obama administration, has become a major foreign policy issue for the Trump White House as it evaluates whether to reimpose economic sanctions on Tehran. Iran has benefited with billions of dollars in freed-up funds while it pursues interventions in Iraq, Syria and Yemen against U.S. interests.

The NCRI-MEK report came the day after Secretary of State Rex Tillerson lambasted Iran for its expansionist terrorist activities in the region which he said violated the spirit of the JCPOA. He called the deal a “failed approach” since Iran can break out and build bombs after 10 years.

The JCPOA outlaws the type of weaponization work described by the NCRI-MEK report.

The State Department reported this week that Iran was abiding by the deal hammered out by former Secretary of State John Kerry and approved by Russia and other powers.

The NCRI rebutted that conclusion during a press conference in Washington by saying it is providing new information on Iranian misdeeds.

The council and MEK have a good track record over the years of disclosing Iranian nuke programs that operated under the radars of Western intelligence agencies. It boasts an extensive spying network inside the Defense Ministry, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and other organs of the hard-line Islamic state ruled by religious mullahs.

The NCRI asserts that Iran’s so-called “declared” sites were not disclosed by Iran, but by the intelligence work of MEK.

The heart of the NCRI-MEK intelligence report is a research operation known as the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research (SPND) and its seven subdivision, which MEK said it first exposed in 2011.

“They are carrying out their research in various fields related to the manufacturing of a nuclear weapon,” the council’s report said. “In some of these fields, new initiatives have also been undertaken in order to keep the real objectives of the research a secret and to cover up the real activities.”

One those subdivisions, the Center of Research and Expansion of Technologies on Explosions and Impact (METFAZ) works on triggers and explosive yields, the statement said. The MEK disclosed METFAZ’s existence in 2009.

The MEK said METFAZ is operating in a secret location unbeknownst to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the world’s nuclear watchdog. In official communications, the regime refers to it as the code name “Research Academy.”

The council investigation said that for the mullahs to continue METFAZ’s work undetected, they downsized a center in Sanjariana and transferred the research and testing to a new site in the military district of Parchin 20 miles south of Tehran.

“We are disclosing this for the first time today,” Mr. Jafrazadeh said. “They felt this was optimum location for shielding the actives of METFAZ.”

Reporters asked Mr. Jafrazadeh why the U.S.’s latest 90-day report to Congress say Iran was complying if it is now cheating.

He answered that the assessment is based on the IAEA monitoring known sites and measuring technical metrics, such as the amounts of enriched uranium.

He said that what the council is disclosing is secret weaponization work that now needs to be investigated. He said the council provided its report in the last few days to the Trump administration and the IAEA.

“We’re talking about an extensive covert operation by the Iranian regime,” he said.

Mr. Jafrazadeh said that when the IAEA visited a limited number of sites at Parchin in 2015, Iran had cleansed them of weaponization evidence.

“It needs to be inspected immediately,” Mr. Jafrazadeh said. He predicted this new intelligence report will prompt Iran to “clean out” its illicit work.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has said that “inspection of our military sites is out of the question and is one of our red lines.” A number of Iranian leaders have repeated that warning in recent months.

The MEK provided satellite photos and descriptions of the exact locations of nuclear research inside the Parchin complex, such as “Plan 6” which is located at “the end of Babaj highway, Khojir-Parchin military road, after the tunnel on the southern side of Mamlo Dam.”

The site is protected by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the dominant security force inside Iran.

The report described the musical chairs this way: “The move resulted in the subsiding of activities at the Sanjarian site. The Iranian regime has done its utmost to keep the Research Academy, which is an important site, a secret from the eyes of international organizations. The reason for the move was based on the conclusion reached by regime officials that the probability for the IAEA to get access to Parchin in the future is extremely low, which means that the site is an optimal location for shielding the regime’s activities in this regard.”

To bolster its findings, the MEK released what it said are the nuts and bolts of Iran’s cheating, such as the identities of 15 METFAZ personnel and their jobs descriptions, and addresses of various secret sites.

The SPND network is headquartered in Tehran in the “Nour Building,” near the Defense Minister which supervises operations.

“In order to understand the regime’s secret and illicit activities, it is critical that the IAEA inspect and monitor not only the Research Academy, but also all other sites related to SPND,” the NCRIR-MEK said. “This will help shed light on the scope of the regime’s secret military and nuclear activities.”

It added, “The weaponization program must be totally dismantled. There is no reason to maintain SPND, and all its subordinate organizations, including METFAZ. They have no peaceful, energy use whatsoever and, their only function is to facilitate the development of the nuclear bomb.”

Mr. Jafrazadeh termed as “ridiculous” Iran’s restrictions on military site inspections since it is the military that oversees nuclear bomb research.

The NCRI received a boost this week when Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain, Arizona Republican, attended a council event in Tirana, Albania, its new home after spending years in Iraq.

He met privately with NCRI leader Maryam Rajavi.

The Washington Times asked the State Department to respond to the NCRI-MEK investigation.

A spokesman referred to Mr. Tillerson’s April 18 letter to Congress certifying that Iran is in compliance. Mr. Tillerson added that the Trump administration will conduct a review of whether the suspension of economic sanctions under JCPOA is in the U.S’s interest.

“Notwithstanding, Iran remains a leading state sponsor of terror through many platforms and methods,” Mr. Tillerson wrote.

Comments: Be the first to comment

Sermon At Dar Al-Hijra Islamic Center In Falls Church, VA: ‘There Is A Difference Between Bani Israel… And Current Jewish Community’; ‘We Are Dealing With Manipulation’; Muslims Must Understand That ‘The Children Of Israel’ Killed Prophets – They ‘Take Pride’ In Their ‘Zealotry… Their History Is Like That’

Posted April 21, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Islamist clerics, Islamist objectives, Islamist organizations, Islamists and Israel, Islamists and Jews, Islamists in America
Tags: , , , , ,

Sermon At Dar Al-Hijra Islamic Center In Falls Church, VA: ‘There Is A Difference Between Bani Israel… And Current Jewish Community’; ‘We Are Dealing With Manipulation’; Muslims Must Understand That ‘The Children Of Israel’ Killed Prophets – They ‘Take Pride’ In Their ‘Zealotry… Their History Is Like That’, MEMRI, April 21, 2017

In a sermon at the Dar Al-Hijra Islamic Center in Falls Church, in Fairfax County, Virginia, Egyptian-American imam Shaker Elsayed pointed out that “there is a difference between Bani Israil” – the Israelites – “and the current Jewish community.” It was “very smart,” he said, “for the Jews of today to call the state they occupied Israel,” adding “We are dealing with manipulation.” He stressed that Muslims need to understand that the “Children of Israel” killed prophets because they did not like their message, and added that they “take pride that they are a community of zealotry and commitment… Their history is like that.”

The Dar Al-Islam Islamic Center is known for its connection to Yemeni-American sheikh and, later, Al-Qaeda leader Anwar Al-Awlaki, who served as its imam from 2001-2001, and to two of the 9/11 hijackers, who had visited him at the mosque. Also, according to Al-Awlaki, Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan had worshipped there during his tenure as imam.[1]

The video of Elsayed’s talk was posted online on March 31, 2017. (The video, in English, is available at the link — DM)

“There Is A Difference Between Bani Israel… And The Current Jewish Community – These Are Not One And The Same”

Shaker Elsayed: “There is a difference between Bani Israil [the Israelites], the historical community of the children of Prophet Jacob – whose name is also Israel – and the current Jewish community, as we know it. These are not one and the same. So, when you say the word ‘Jews,’ it is not equal to ‘Israelites.'” […]

“Very Smart For The Jews Of Today To Call The State They Occupied ‘Israel’ … We Are Dealing With Manipulation… I Hope Somebody Doesn’t Call Me Antisemitic… I Am More Semitic Than Those Who Claim To Be Semitic”

“It has been very smart for the Jews of today to call the state they occupied ‘Israel.’ It is giving it a name that is significant, important, and honored by Muslims. So now, if you speak against Israel, the state, they construe it as if you are talking against Jacob and his children, and against your own Book. But we have to understand what we are dealing with. We are dealing with manipulation as well. I hope somebody doesn’t call me antisemitic, because I am more Semitic than those who claim to be Semitic.” […]

“We Muslims Really Need To Wrap Our Heads Around These Two Issues: Number One Is The Response Of The Children Of Israel To Four Previous Prophets… The Quran Summarizes It: ‘…You Acted Arrogantly: You Called Some Messengers Liars And Killed Others'”

“We Muslims really need to wrap our heads around these two issues: Number one is the response of the children of Israel to four previous prophets. What was their response? The Quran summarizes it: ‘But is it not true that every time a Messenger brought to you something that was not to your liking, you acted arrogantly: you called some Messengers liars and killed others?'”

“Whenever A Messenger Comes To You [Children Of Israel] With Something You Don’t Like… You… Killed Some And You Belied Some”; They Killed “Three Of Them [Prophets] Consecutively, Right Before Jesus” 

“Isn’t it true that whenever a messenger comes to you with something you don’t like, you either kill or killed some and you belied some. You rejected some and you killed some. Right? So, they killed Prophet Zakariya, named Zechariah in their Book. They killed his son Yahya, John the Baptist in their Book. They killed Elias [Elijah], who has the same name in their Book. [They killed] three of them consecutively and concurrently, right before Jesus. So those three were finished.” […]

“So They Are Saying: “If Anyone Comes With A Message That We Reject, We Will Kill Him”; They “Take Pride That They Are A Community Of Zealotry… Their History Is Like That”

“So they are saying: ‘If anyone comes with a message that we reject, we will kill him.’ So they get rid of the prophet and the message, and it is finished. So they did this, and Jesus was saying that they were going to try to kill him, as they did to Elijah. An amazing prophecy. And it happened – they delivered him to be crucified. So after killing four prophets in a row… Jesus was an attempt – it was not fulfilled, according to the Quran, but they take pride in it anyway.

“[According to the Quran], they say: ‘Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah. And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but [another] was made to resemble him.’ So they still take pride that they are a community of zealotry and commitment, and they are willing to go all the way, to do anything. And they proved that. Their history is like that.

[…]

“This is one big reason – that what happened to these four prophets, besides many other prophets before, that we don’t know the details of what was done to them.”

 

[1] ABCnews.go.com, November 30, 2009; MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 2713, On Al-Jazeera.net – First Interview with U.S.-Born Yemen-Based Imam Anwar Al-‘Awlaki on Major Hasan and the Fort Hood Shooting: Nidal [Hasan] Contacted Me a Year Ago, December 23, 2009.

Comments: Be the first to comment

Another Doctor and Wife Arrested in Michigan For Female Genital Mutilation on Young Girls

Posted April 21, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Department of Justice, Female genital mutilation in U.S.
Tags: ,

Another Doctor and Wife Arrested in Michigan For Female Genital Mutilation on Young Girls, Town Hall, Katie Pavlich, April 21, 2017

(Please see also, Detroit doctor charged with female genital mutilation of seven-year-olds. The Trump administration is continuing to pursue this problem.– DM)

Doctor Fakhruddin Attar and wife Farida were arrested Friday near Detroit for conspiring to commit and aiding in female genital mutilation [FGM] of girls as young as six-years-old. The Attars allegedly allowed the procedure to be carried in their Livonia medical clinic. Mrs. Attar even held the hands of the girls screaming in pain. 

According to the criminal complaint from the Department of Justice, the couple conspired with Detroit emergency room doctor Jumana Nagarwala. Nagarwale was arrested last week for performing the procedure on a number of girls.

“This investigation has identified other children who may have been cut by Nagarwala at Attar’s clinic, MBC, between 2005 and 2017, including children in Michigan. On April 10, 2017, child forensic interviews employed by the FBI and HSI interviewed several minor girls in Michigan. In these interviews, multiple minor girls informed forensic interviewers that procedures had been performed on their genitals by Nagarwala. One minor girl said that Farida was present during the procedure performed by Nagarwala,” the complaint states.

Parents of the victims were also interviewed by the FBI and two admitted Nagarwala had performed the procedures on their daughters at the clinic. The others denied any knowledge of the practice, but according to wiretapped conversations between Nagarwala and Mrs. Attar, Nagarwala advised parents to deny knowing about FGM should they be asked by federal law enforcement authorities.

The victims were driven by their parents across state lines for the extreme procedure, many coming from Minnesota. They will likely face a number of charges. The minors were told they were being taken on a “girls trip.” Once they arrived at the hotel, they were told they needed to go Nagarwala for a “stomach ache” and FGM was performed to “get the germs out.”

During her court appearance earlier this week, Dr. Nagarwala’s attorneys denied FGM is mutilation and said the procedure is a basic religious practice.

This conspiracy is the first FGM case in the United States. You can read the entire criminal complaint below.

Attar Complaint 0 by Katie Pavlich on Scribd (available at the link — DM)

Comments: Be the first to comment

PM Netanyahu Meets US Secretary of Defense Mattis – YouTube

Posted April 21, 2017 by Joseph Wouk
Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »