Posted tagged ‘Islam’

Syrian army bolstering Iranian terrorism, Netanyahu tells Putin

September 21, 2015

Syrian army bolstering Iranian terrorism, Netanyahu tells Putin PM in Moscow to ‘clarify’ Israeli policy amid Russian buildup; Kremlin leader says Damascus too busy to bother with fighting Israel as both By Times of Israel staff September 21, 2015, 4:39 pm

Source: Syrian army bolstering Iranian terrorism, Netanyahu tells Putin | The Times of Israel

Russian President Vladimir Putin shakes hands with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, right, during their meeting in the Novo-Ogaryovo residence, outside Moscow, Russia, Monday, Sept. 21, 2015. (AP Photo/Ivan Sekretarev, Pool)

Russian President Vladimir Putin shakes hands with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, right, during their meeting in the Novo-Ogaryovo residence, outside Moscow, Russia, Monday, Sept. 21, 2015. (AP Photo/Ivan Sekretarev, Pool)

The Syrian army is aiding Iran and Hezbollah in building an anti-Israel terror network on the Golan Heights, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Russian President Vladimir Putin Monday, with the Kremlin strongman responding that Damascus has no time to worry about fighting Israel.

Netanyahu’s three-hour meeting with Putin during a lightning trip to the Kremlin Monday came amid reports that Moscow is building up militarily in Syria, and Israeli concerns of a possible clash with Russian forces, which are bolstering embattled Syrian President Bashar Assad.

“Israel and Russia have a shared interest to ensure stability in the Middle East,” Netanyahu told Putin at the start of the meeting, according to an account from the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office. “And I am here because of the security situation, which is becoming more complex on our northern border. As you know, in recent years, and increasingly in recent months, Iran and Syria are arming the extremist Muslim terror group Hezbollah with advanced weaponry, which is pointed at us and has already been fired at us over the years — thousands of missiles and rockets on our cities.”

Syria’s military, Netanyahu added, was giving cover to Iranian efforts to open a new front against Israel.

The West has been concerned over Russia’s military buildup in Syria, which Moscow has said is aimed to help the Syrian government fight the Islamic State group. Russia, Syria’s long-standing ally, has denied that it helps Syria militarily to support the Assad regime.

Earlier this week, new satellite imagery showed the recent arrival of Russian tanks, armored personnel carriers and other military equipment at an air base in Syria’s coastal Latakia province, confirming reports by US, Israeli and other officials of a Russian military buildup.

Israel has long expressed concerns that Iranian and Hezbollah agents have used the fighting in Syria as cover to build up forces along the Golan heights to carry out attacks against Israel. A number of airstrikes over the last several years, reportedly targeting Iranian backed cells and weapons shipments, have been assigned to Israel.

“Iran, under the auspices of the Syrian army, is trying to build a second terror front against us from the Golan. Our policy is to prevent these weapons transfers, and to prevent the formation of a terror front and attacks against us from the territory of the Golan. In these circumstances, I thought it was very important that I come here, both to clarify our policy and to make sure there are no misunderstandings between our forces,” Netanyahu told Putin.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is welcomed by representatives of the Israeli Embassy in Russia, as well as Russian delegates, as he arrives on an official visit to Moscow, Russia, September 21, 2015. (Israeli Embassy in Russia/Flash90)

Putin welcomed Netanyahu’s visit, but expressed skepticism over the latter’s Syria warnings.

“All Russia’s actions in the region were always very responsible. We are aware of the issue of bombardments of Israel [with rockets] and reject all such bombardments. To my knowledge, these bombardments are carried out by homemade systems,” he said.

“As for Syria, We know that the Syrian army and Syria as a whole are in such a state that they have no time for a second front. They need to save their own state. Our main goal is to defend the Syrian state. With that, I understand your concern, and I’m very happy you came here so we could discuss all these issues in detail.”

The visit to Moscow comes a week before Netanyahu is scheduled to fly to the US to speak at the United Nations and meet with American officials, ahead of a White House visit in November.

Jerusalem has tried to maintain friendly ties with Russia, shying away from taking a position on fighting in Ukraine or other issues that the Kremlin and Washington have clashed over recently.

Putin also praised Israel, which is home to some million Russian-speakers.

“We never forget that a great many expats from the former Soviet Union live in the State of Israel, and that has a special impact on relations between the countries.”

Ben Carson in CAIR’s crosshairs

September 21, 2015

Ben Carson in CAIR’s crosshairs, Front Page MagazineRobert Spencer, September 21, 2015

(Isn’t it shameful that Dr. Carson is a politically incorrect “Islamophobe?” What is that, anyway?

Don’t we want another a Muslim in the White House? Then Obama could be truly proud of America. What could possibly go wrong? — DM)

ben-carson

Carson was right. But now the media sharks, ever eager to do the bidding of Hamas-linked CAIR and other Islamic supremacists, will be circling – and hungry. If he is forced to drop out for saying things CAIR doesn’t like, it will be just one more nail in the coffin of the free society that CAIR disingenuously professes to love and support, but which it is actually doing all it can to subvert.

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

If Ibrahim Hooper of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has any say in the matter, whoever the next President is, it won’t be Ben Carson. “He is not qualified to be president of the United States,” fumed CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper, no doubt an unimpeachable authority on who is and is not qualified to be President, on Sunday. “You cannot hold these kinds of views and at the same time say you will represent all Americans, of all faiths and backgrounds.” What views? Carson said: “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.” He said that this was because Islam contradicted important Constitutional principles.

CAIR, designated a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates, sent out an email Sunday saying it would hold a news conference demanding that Carson withdraw from the presidential race for daring to say these things. “Mr. Carson clearly does not understand or care about the Constitution, which states that ‘no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office,’” said CAIR top dog Nihad Awad. “We call on our nation’s political leaders – across the political spectrum – to repudiate these unconstitutional and un-American statements and for Mr. Carson to withdraw from the presidential race.”

But the problems with a Muslim being President aren’t religious, they’re political. Islamic law infringes upon the freedom of speech, forbidding criticism of Islam. Islamic law denies equality of rights to women. Islamic law denies equality of rights to non-Muslims. If a Muslim renounced all this, he or she could be an effective Constitutional ruler, but in today’s politically correct climate, no one is even likely to ask for such a renunciation. Instead, no one even acknowledges that these really are elements of Islamic law.

No one, that is, except the Muslim clerics who agree with Carson. Syrian Islamic scholar Abd Al-Karim Bakkar said in March 2009: “Democracy runs counter to Islam on several issues….In democracy, legislation is the prerogative of the people. It is the people who draw up the constitution, and they have the authority to amend it as well. On this issue we differ” — because in Islamic thought, only Allah legislates.

Abd Al-Karim Bakkar was reflecting a common view. Pakistan Muslim leader Sufi Muhammad said in May 2009: “I would not offer prayer behind anyone who would seek to justify democracy.” Mesbah Yazdi, leader of the Shia Taliban in Iran, said in September 2010 that “democracy, freedom, and human rights have no place” — in Islam, that is. Australian Muslim cleric Ibrahim Saddiq Conlan said in June 2011: “Democracy is evil, the parliament is evil and legislation is evil.”

In January 2013, the Saudi Islamic scholar Sheikh Abdul Rahman bin Nassir Al Barrak declared: “Electing a president or another form of leadership or council members is prohibited in Islam as it has been introduced by the enemies of Moslems.” The idea of popular elections, he said, “has been brought by the anti-Islam parties who have occupied Moslem land.”

Some Muslims in the West hold these views as well. In April 2015, Muslims in Wales plastered Cardiff with posters reading: “Democracy is a system whereby man violates the right of Allah and decides what is permissible or impermissible for mankind, based solely on their whims and desires. This leads to a decayed and degraded society where crime and immorality becomes widespread and injustice becomes the norm. Islam is the only real, working solution for the UK. It is a comprehensive system of governance where the laws of Allah are implemented and justice is observed.”

And two Muslim groups in Denmark last June called on Muslims to boycott the elections that were held that month. One explained: “We are committed to being active participants in our society, but it has to be on Islam’s terms, without compromising our own principles and values. Democracy is fundamentally incompatible with Islam, and it is a sinking ship.” The Grimshøj mosque in Aarhus agreed, issuing a statement saying that “people should stay clear of the voting booths. We have concluded that only Allah can pass laws, as he says himself in the Koran that this is so.”

Tunisian author Salem Ben Ammar wrote last month: “‘To hell with democracy! Long live Islam!’ One hundred percent of Muslims agree with that. To say anything else is apostasy from Islam. These two competing political systems are antithetical to each other. You can’t be democratic and be a Muslim or a Muslim and be a democrat. A Jew can’t be a Nazi and a Nazi can’t be a Judeophile.”

Question for Hamas-linked CAIR’s Hooper and Awad: are all these Muslims “Islamophobes” for saying that Islam and democracy are incompatible, or is that honor reserved only for Carson (and other infidels)? And are either or both of you cognizant of the irony of pretending to uphold Constitutional values while demanding that a man drop out of the Presidential race for the crime of exercising his freedom of speech? Are either or both of you aware that you have thereby just become poster children for how correct Ben Carson really was?

Carson was right. But now the media sharks, ever eager to do the bidding of Hamas-linked CAIR and other Islamic supremacists, will be circling – and hungry. If he is forced to drop out for saying things CAIR doesn’t like, it will be just one more nail in the coffin of the free society that CAIR disingenuously professes to love and support, but which it is actually doing all it can to subvert.

In Moscow, presence of IDF generals sends a message of military urgency

September 21, 2015

In Moscow, presence of IDF generals sends a message of military urgency In rare move, Netanyahu brings both IDF chief and intelligence head to Russia to drive home concerns on Hezbollah, Syria By Judah Ari Gross September 21, 2015, 11:54 am

Source: In Moscow, presence of IDF generals sends a message of military urgency | The Times of Israel

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sits with IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot during a visit to the northern border of Israel on August 18, 2015. (Amos Ben Gershom/GPO)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sits with IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot during a visit to the northern border of Israel on August 18, 2015. (Amos Ben Gershom/GPO)

n a sign that it has not taken last week’s movement of the Russian military into Syria lightly, Israel sent not one but two members of the IDF General Staff with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Moscow Monday, in an effort to hash out the precarious relationships between Israel, Russia, Syria and Hezbollah.

Both IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot and Military Intelligence Head Maj. Gen. Herzl “Hertzi” Halevi are accompanying Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss the movement of Russian troops into Syria with Russian President Vladimir Putin and his advisers.

The presence of either one of these generals on this trip would be notable in itself. That both are traveling with Netanyahu is meant to demonstrate to both the people of Israel and the government of Russia the gravity of the situation on Israel’s northern border and the IDF’s intention to keep up airstrikes on high-priority Hezbollah targets in Syria.

Israel has admitted to targeting several Hezbollah and Syrian weapons facilities and convoys in the past several years, and it has been assumed that the Israel Air Force has carried out many more, despite officials’ refusal to claim responsibility.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Russian President Vladimir Putin at Netanyahu's residence in Jerusalem on June 25, 2012 (Marc Israel Sellem/POOL/Flash90)

Most such attacks have been against so-called advanced weapons systems — missiles and artillery guns, rather than rifles and grenades.

Putin, however, complicated Israel’s strategies vis-a-vis Hezbollah and Syria when he announced that the Russian military would be moving into the war-torn country, setting up in the port city of Latakia.

Satellite images already show Russian-made artillery guns and SU-30 combat planes in the northwestern Syrian city.

The presence of Russian soldiers in the country is an added obstacle for the IDF, which must now continue to prevent Israel’s enemies from obtaining dangerous weapons, without causing an international incident by killing an ally’s soldiers.

In 2013 and 2014, Israel was suspected of having carried out airstrikes on weapons sites in Latakia. With Russian military now present in the city, similar attacks may be more difficult to carry out.

An armored personnel carrier, likely a Russian made BTR-82A, firing large-caliber bullets during a battle in Latakia, Syria, is seen in a video posted online on August 23, 2015. (Screen capture YouTube)

Though the Israeli government has not released an itinerary for Monday’s trip, Eisenkot and Halevi will likely meet with their Russian army counterparts to address two related issues: preventing Hezbollah from obtaining Russian-made weaponry and Israel Air Force strikes against the advanced weapons systems already in the possession of the Iran-aligned militia.

Though some of Hezbollah’s arsenal comes from Iran, several of its deadliest weapons — the Kornet anti-tank missile, which has been deadly in combat against Israeli Merkava tanks, and the Katyusha rocket, which rained down on Israel’s northern cities during the Second Lebanon War in 2006 — come from Russia.

Though many of these weapons systems were intended for Syria, some have nevertheless ended up in the hands of Hezbollah, according to Nadav Pollak, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Some of the systems sold by Russia include anti-aircraft guns and surface-to-air missiles, which could be devastating to Israel’s air superiority in a future conflict with Hezbollah, Pollak said.

As head of intelligence, Halevi will likely present information to the Russian military, showing how these Russian-made weapons end up in the hands of Hezbollah, Pollak explained.

Brig. Gen. Herzi Halevi speaking Thursday. (photo credit: Mitch Ginsburg/Times of Israel)

In addition to attempting to prevent further such transfers, Netanyahu, Eisenkot and Halevi will also discuss Israel’s plans to destroy those advanced systems the terrorist organization has already acquired.

As Hezbollah has been closely aligned with Russia’s ally Assad, this may be a sticking point with Putin, though it is not one Israel is prepared to give up on, Yossi Cohen, national security adviser to the prime minister, told the Israel Hayom newspaper Monday.

Netanyahu will tell Putin that Israel won’t accept restrictions on its response capabilities in Syria, Cohen said.

As Israel’s strikes against Hezbollah have taken place on Syrian territory, which violates its sovereignty, Pollak explained, “there is a chance that Russia will express its objection to this policy.”

The United States has also voiced concerns over Putin’s role in the Syrian civil war.

“Continued military support for the regime by Russia or any other country risks the possibility of attracting more extremists and entrenching Assad, and hinders the way for resolution,” US Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters in Germany on Sunday.

Kerry has proposed military-to military talks with Russia to prevent any clashes between US and Russian forces in the region, to ensure that “there’s no potential of a mistake or of an accident of some kind that produces a greater potential of conflict.”

Ben Carson: Let’s not have a Muslim Prez

September 20, 2015

Ben Carson: Let’s not have a Muslim Prez, Power LineJohn Hinderaker, September 20, 2015

It is hard to imagine the abuse that Carson is going to take for those remarks. He’d better batten down the hatches. But what he said is true: Islam is incompatible with the Constitution because it does not recognize a separation between church and state.

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

On Meet the Press this morning, Ben Carson said that Islam is incompatible with our Constitution, and that he would not endorse having a Muslim president. As far as I can see, all news outlets are quoting the same words, and a complete transcript may reveal additional nuance. But this is what is being quoted:

Asked whether his faith or the faith of a president should matter, Carson said, “It depends on what that faith is.”

“If it’s inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the constitution, no problem,” he explained, according to a transcript.

Todd then asked Carson, whose rise in the polls has been powered in large part by Christian conservatives, if he believed that “Islam is consistent with the Constitution.”

“No, I don’t, I do not,” he responded, adding, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”

Carson added these more positive comments about Islam:

But for Carson, the matter of voting for a Muslim for Congress “is a different story, but it depends on who that Muslim is and what their policies are, just as it depends on what anybody else says, you know.”

“And, you know, if there’s somebody who’s of any faith, but they say things, and their life has been consistent with things that will elevate this nation and make it possible for everybody to succeed, and bring peace and harmony, then I’m with them,” he went on to say.

It is hard to imagine the abuse that Carson is going to take for those remarks. He’d better batten down the hatches. But what he said is true: Islam is incompatible with the Constitution because it does not recognize a separation between church and state.

In this respect Islam is entirely different from Judaism and Christianity. The Jewish prophets were often critics of Israel’s kings, and Jesus built on Judaic tradition when he said, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.” There is no similar doctrine in Islam. This is one of many instances where the simple-minded belief that all religions are essentially the same–a belief commonly held by the non-religious–is dangerously wrong.

In short, either our Constitution must give way to Islam, or American Muslims must give way to our Constitution. In many cases, no doubt, the latter has happened, and most American Muslims are good citizens. Over time, an American strand of Islam that is more compatible with our laws and political traditions may come to predominate. Maybe it already has.

But world-wide, the trend in Islam is more toward resurgent fundamentalism than toward tolerant moderation. And, as I understand Islam, Carson is correct that a person who holds faithfully to Islamic doctrine has views that are incompatible with our Constitution. Carson will take enormous abuse for saying the unsayable, but he deserves credit for putting an important issue–which bears strongly, to cite just one example, on our immigration policy–on the table. If his understanding of Islam (and mine) is wrong, no doubt correction will follow. But that is a candid discussion that needs to take place.

Muslims of America terrorist training compounds

September 20, 2015

Muslims of America terrorist training compounds

By Carol Brown

September 20, 2015

Source: Articles: Muslims of America terrorist training compounds

While the Middle East remains a hotbed for terrorists, we’ve got our own jihad training compounds set up in rural areas across the United States. They are run by an organization called Muslims of America (MOA). Law enforcement describes these compounds as “classically structured terrorist cells.”

If you visit the MOA website, you’ll get a hefty dose of taqiyya. The home page has an image of a large American flag along with a banner advertising one of their offshoot organizations called the United Muslim Christian Forum. The goal of this bogus group is to find common ground between Muslims and Christians, including mutual hatred of Jews. The web site also features a slick 16-minute propaganda video.

On the opposite end of the spectrum from what the MOA is publically peddling is the non-taqiyya version of who they are. Otherwise known as the truth.

Let’s start with the founder: El Sheikh Gilani. Prior to MOA, he founded Jamaat ul-Fuqra, a Pakistani terror organization. MOA is the American version of ul-Fuqra.

Gilani is also the man Daniel Pearl had set out to interview on that fateful day when Pearl was kidnapped. (May Daniel’s soul rest in peace.)

Per the Northeast Intelligence Network, Gilani emigrated from Pakistan around 1980. He settled in Brooklyn, NY, where he began preaching at a mosque frequented by African-American Muslims. This is where he started to recruit for jihad in Afghanistan, often targeting black criminals who converted to Islam in prison — a source of recruits for jihad that continues to this day.

Then Gilani took things a step further and set up a terror-training compound in a rural area of upstate New York. There are now numerous MOA compounds across the United States. Estimates vary regarding how many there are, ranging from 22 to 35. As of this writing, states where MOA has set up shop are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia.

In other words, they’re just about everywhere.

In some states there is more than one location. New York’s “Islamburg” (located in the town of Hancock) is the largest operation and serves as the headquarters. The MOA compound in Colorado was the site of a 1989 seizure by federal authorities of firearms, explosive devices, forged documents, military manuals, and data on potential targets. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for more information on MOA locations, including maps.)

There is no doubt that MOA is a terror organization operating on American soil. It is well documented by the FBI whose records state that MOA has the infrastructure to plan and carry out terror attacks (here, and overseas) and that MOA leaders urge their members to commit jihad against enemies of Islam.

In addition to the FBI, there are courageous individuals and private organizations on the bleeding edge of investigating and exposing this deadly organization, including the Christian Action Network (CAN), with founder and author of Twilight in America, Martin Mawyer, leading the way. (Interview with Mawyer, here.)

Two reports by CAN reveal MOA’s insular communities that thrive on brainwashing, deception, hate, and violence. These reports are summarized below.

  • MOA trains men, and women, to become jihadists poised to attack Americans when Gilani gives the order. Toward this end, MOA maintains a stockpile of illegal weapons. Residents are taught that jihad is their life’s purpose and have been indoctrinated to believe Gilani can travel through space and time to spy on them. After recruits are trained here, many are then sent to Pakistan for more paramilitary training.
  • Compounds are completely insular, with their own stores, mosques, and graveyards, as well as guard posts to intercept visitors. Living conditions are typically poor. Many locations are near lakes where jihadists-in-training shoot weapons across the lake (standing behind the 2nd amendment when confronted about it) in addition to learning other means of attack such as slitting throats and strangulation. All members follow Sharia law and consider themselves to be above local, state and federal authority.
  • Large families and government dependence are encouraged with much of the money sent to Gilani, who is now back in Pakistan. Welfare fraud is rampant as children are urged to commit crimes against non-Muslims and to engage in scams, including welfare fraud and drug-related crimes (with drug money sent to Gilani). Members often use aliases and spelling variations of their names.
  • There are as many as four generations of people living in these camps, all of whom have been taught from the outset to distrust Americans and to prepare for jihad. For some members, life in the camp is all they’ve ever known. In addition to those who were born at the compound, MOA openly recruits through social service organizations, with many new members coming from the prison system.
  • Discipline in the camps is ruthless and is used to exact punishment and intimidate members from leaving. If members break a rule, they may be tied to a tree and beaten. In addition, women are routinely raped and children are physically abused. Girls are denied an education, such as it is.

Per the Northeast Intelligence Network, MOA members have been suspected and/or convicted of a variety or crimes, including assassinations, fire bombings, and fraud. Money has been laundered through Muslim front organizations established by Gilani, including an Islamic university and private elementary schools.

So how does MOA get away this?

Two former FBI agents (Tim Clemente and John Guandolo) reported on factors that reflect a combination of deception, political correctness, and public policy that inhibits the FBI’s ability to do their job. First, the FBI wants to avoid the appearance that it is scrutinizing Muslim organizations and/or is infringing on religious freedom. Second, MOA sets up religious/charitable causes to mask their illicit activities, intertwining good with bad. This enables them to play the victim card during investigation attempts.

In other words, suicidal political correctness overrides our safety as United States law enforcement allows itself to be intimidated by faux charities that provide cover for terrorists.

But perhaps the most significant barrier to our ability to take action is the fact that our State Department refuses to designate ul-Fuqra a terrorist organization despite unequivocal evidence that they are. In addition, as Ryan Mauro, national security researcher for CAN stated back in 2009: “law enforcement authorities do not have the tools they need to search these compounds…members involved in terrorist and criminal activity are being treated as if they are isolated incidents; rogue followers of an otherwise innocent cult. Legislation on the state level also needs to be passed to permit the authorities to search these compounds.”

So we’ve got jihad training camps and sleeper cells scattered all across the United States ready to attack. And what are we doing about it? Precious little.

Who among us will be the next to fall victim to Gilani’s directive?

“Act like you are his friend. Then kill him.”

(To learn more about MOA, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Videos here, here, and here.)

 

Hat tips: Bare Naked Islam, The Clarion Project, Counterjihad Report, Facing Islam, Law Enforcement Today, The Conservative Papers, Sharia Unveiled, Jihad Watch, The Blaze, Front Page Magazine
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/09/muslims_of_america_terrorist_training_compounds.html#ixzz3mHOzxcyf
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Iran nuclear deal adoption to take place October 18

September 19, 2015

Iran nuclear deal adoption to take place October 18 Controversial accord to be implemented next month; US says Tehran must take steps to satisfy IAEA before punitive measures removed By JTA September 18, 2015, 4:50 am

Source: Iran nuclear deal adoption to take place October 18 | The Times of Israel

 

WASHINGTON (JTA) — The formal adoption of the Iran nuclear deal will be Oct. 18, but it is not yet clear how long it will take for Iran to satisfy conditions to relieve sanctions, top US officials said.

The senior administration officials, speaking Thursday afternoon in a conference call with reporters, outlined the steps Iran must take before inspectors with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog, confirm that Iran is in compliance with the nuclear deal reached in July between Iran and six major powers.

The call to reporters came the same day that the Obama administration announced that Stephen Mull, the outgoing ambassador to Poland, would be the point person for ensuring Iranian compliance with the deal.

Among other measures, Iran must remove thousands of centrifuges from its Natanz reactor, ship overseas all but 300 kilograms of 12,000 kilograms of enriched uranium and remove the center of its plutonium reactor, the officials said.

Because of how involved the measures are, the officials would not estimate how long it would take to get to “implementation day,” when the IAEA confirms compliance and sanctions are lifted. Reports have indicated that Iran is likely to comply with conditions in from between six months to a year from adoption of the deal.

“All of this will take a lot of effort and probably a fair amount of time,” said an official. “The ball is in Iran’s court — it’s hard to predict how long it will be before sanctions relief is implemented.”

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity.

One condition the Iranians must complete prior to Oct. 18, or “adoption day,” is to report to the IAEA on the possible military dimensions of its past nuclear activity. Iran has instead its nuclear research is for civilian purposes only. The deadline for Iran’s report to the IAEA is Oct. 15.

The Obama administration on Thursday said the way was clear to launch the deal now that Congress has reached the deadline to pass a bill that would kill the deal. Senate Democrats used parliamentary procedures to block votes last week, on Tuesday and then on Thursday.

Republicans oppose the deal. The Obama administration and opponents of the deal, include Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee for the last two months fiercely battled to influence Democrats and also the US Jewish community on the deal.

Opponents said the deal leaves Iran a nuclear threshold state, while the Obama administration argued that it was the best means of keeping Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Director of Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control Adam Szubin. (screen capture: Youtube)

 

The ‘Iran Deal’ Was Not Signed by Iran or Anyone Else

September 19, 2015

Neither Iran nor any other party has signed the ‘Iran Deal.’ That means there is no formal agreement. That means nothing bars Iran’s race to nuclear weapons. By: Lori Lowenthal Marcus Published: September 19th, 2015

Source: The Jewish Press » » The ‘Iran Deal’ Was Not Signed by Iran or Anyone Else

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS-04)

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS-04)
Photo Credit: Wikimedia

 

The Nuclear Iran Deal that is at the epicenter of a Congressional battle and the focus of so much attention for months is not actually any deal at all, as not one of the parties, including any representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran, has signed the Agreement.

This morning, Sept. 18, Cong. Mike Pompeo (R-KS-04) sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry. In that letter Pompeo informed the Secretary that while reviewing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (Nuclear Iran Deal), he noted that there are no signatures on the so-called final Agreement.

Without signatures, there can be no legally binding contract.

There apparently is no “Iran Deal.”

Pompeo asked Kerry to provide a copy of the JCPOA with signatures and signing authority, so that members of Congress and the rest of the American people know that the parties to the agreement have “confirm[ed] each country’s commitment to the agreement” and that “makes clear precisely who the parties to the agreement are and the authority under which that nation entered into the agreement.”

International affairs scholar and Iran expert Michael Ledeen pointed out more than two months ago that Iran’s Ayatollah Khameini would not allow his country to sign the JCPOA. Ledeen’s point then, and today, is that the desperation exhibited by the Obama administration made clear to the Iranian leader that “there is no reason for him to approve a hated deal with the devil. It’s much better to keep talking until all the sanctions are gone, and Iran’s ‘right’ to pursue its nuclear projects is fully recognized.”

It appears that Ledeen’s prediction was dead-on. If there is no signed agreement, even the feeble conditions placed on Iran by Team Kerry’s negotiators are unenforceable.

When asked what then, is the current status of the JCPOA, assuming the administration did not just, oh, forget to distribute to Congress the signed version, Ledeen told the JewishPress.com: “It’s a verbal agreement. It means the diplomats meeting in Vienna thought it was a good agreement, but that is all. It is not enforceable.”

Ledeen said he could not think of any other major international agreement, certainly not any of the portentous nature of the Iran Deal, where lawmakers moved forward to begin implementation without having a signed agreement in place.

“Anyone who has read in the media that the ‘Iran Deal’ was signed has to now know they were lied to, it has not happened.”

So what next?

Congress could, conceivably, pass a law forbidding the lifting of sanctions. That’s been tried, you say? True, but will the same members of Congress who support the deal, the same ones who never read significant portions of the deal, and who had those portions explained to them by people who themselves never read the deal are willing to once again vote against or even bar a vote on a stay on the lifting of sanctions when they know there is nothing preventing Tehran from violating any of the purportedly agreed-to conditions? Will they really?

Cong. Pompeo’s letter to Secretary Kerry follows:

Dear Secretary Kerry:


I have reviewed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between the P5+1 and Islamic Republic of Iran – or at least the parts of the agreement that were provided to Congress by the administration.  As you know, pursuant to H. Res. 411, the House of Representatives considers the documents transmitted on July 19, 2015 incomplete in light of the fact that the secret side deals between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Islamic Republic of Iran were not provided to Congress.  I look forward to seeing the entire agreement – including the two secret side deals that are part of the JCPOA – so that Congress may continue to evaluate the JCPOA and, depending on the outcome of the vote under the relevant provisions of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, potentially end the current and continuing prohibition of the lifting of sanctions on Iran.

During that review, I found that the copies provided to Congress of the JCPOA are not signed by any of the P5+1 members nor by Iran.  Having never seen an international agreement of this magnitude not signed by the parties or an agent of the parties, I assume this is simply an oversight or an administrative error.  That is, Congress must not have the final version of the agreement that would necessarily be signed.  I request that you provide us with copies of a final, executed copy of the JCPOA.  In the event that the JCPOA has not yet been signed by the parties, please inform us (a) when signatures will be placed on the agreement, (b) what parties will be signing, and (c) which person you anticipate will sign on behalf of each of those parties, including on behalf of the United States.

I am confident that you intended for the JCPOA to be signed by each of the P5+1 participants.  I can find no international agreement of this “historic” nature that was not signed by the parties.  Each of the past five major nuclear agreements to which the U.S. is a party – SALT I, SALT II, START I, START II and the 1994 Agreed Framework between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea – were signed by representatives of each nation that was party to the agreement.  This is not a mere formality.  Those signatures represent the commitment of the signatory and the country on whose behalf he or she is signing.

A signature also serves to make clear precisely who the parties to the agreement are and the authority under which that nation entered into the agreement.  In short, just as with any legal instrument, signing matters.

This is particularly important with respect to JCPOA.  Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has made clear that he does not believe that JCPOA is legally binding on his nation, saying, “If the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is sent to (and passed by) parliament, it will create an obligation for the government.  It will mean the president, who has not signed it so far, will have to sign it.  Why should we place an unnecessary legal restriction on the Iranian people?”

Given the many benefits that will accrue to the ayatollahs, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, and other unsavory elements of the Iranian regime, I believe that Iran should, at the very least, bind itself to the few requirements placed on it under the JCPOA by signing the agreement.  I also believe that the United States and its P5+1 partners on the JCPOA should execute the agreement on behalf of their countries.  I look forward to your response.

We all do.

Canada: The Spanish Inquisition Makes a Comeback

September 15, 2015

Canada: The Spanish Inquisition Makes a Comeback, Gatestone InstituteDouglas Murray, September 15, 2015

(It’s not really funny, but perhaps this may make up for it.

— DM)

  • Some readers will remember the disputes during the last decade when the journalists were hauled before the farcical “Human Rights Commissions” of Canada and asked to explain why they had ever said anything that the state commissars did not agree with. Best of all is that the members of the Commission do not have to wait for anybody to complain to them before they act.
  • The Commission is allowed to head out all by itself and search for things that are offensive. One must wonder whether it may just – wholly unforeseeably – be a government department which continuously finds work to justify its existence?
  • The Tribunal is planning to keep a publicly available list of people found guilty of “hate speech” — like a sex-offender database. Presumably this means that members of the public can check that they are not living in the proximity of anybody who is likely to express him-or-herself with words.
  • I am sure that Monsieur Fremont will agree that the safest thing to do is either not to report an attack on the Canadian Parliament or to ensure that all papers or individuals who mention such an attack are immediately fined $10,000 and put on the Hate-Speech-offenders list for doing so.
  • The Human Rights Tribunal will be able to decide on each occasion how much money it wants. Might it not in fact be more convenient for the Tribunals if they simply put all writers on a system of direct-debit and levy the fine on absolutely everyone after any terrorist attack?
  • We had hoped that the country had learned that for most of the civilized world, blasphemy laws are meant to be a thing of the past. But after the latest events in Quebec, we will no longer be fooled. The whole world will be able to see that in Canada blasphemy laws are a thing of the future.

Think back twenty years and imagine that someone then had told you that developed Western democracies would spend the first decades of the twenty-first century introducing new blasphemy laws. “You mean ‘repealing’ surely?” your wise younger self would probably have said. And if you had been persuaded that, no, new blasphemy laws really were going to be brought into effect in the not-too-distant future, doubtless your follow-on question would have been, “So how did the Spanish inquisition manage to make such a comeback?”

The latest country to attempt – yet again – to impose new blasphemy laws in the twenty-first century is Canada. I say “yet again” because some readers will remember the disputes during the last decade when the journalists Mark Steyn, Ezra Levant and others were hauled before the farcical “Human Rights Commissions” of Canada and asked to explain why they had ever said anything that the state commissars did not agree with. Those Commissions soon became a focus of everybody around the world who cares about free speech. The site of a dreary bureaucrat asking journalists to explain why they had felt impelled to write something truly began to look like tragedy repeated not as farce but as mind-numbing proceduralism.

But now the worst Canadian idea of modern times appears to be back. The Quebec National Assembly is currently considering a bill that would criminalize any criticism of Islam and redesignate it as “hate speech.” Bill 59 – as this latest totalitarian procedure is titled – is being proposed by the Minister of Justice, Stephanie Vallee; and the head of the Quebec Human Rights Commission, Jacques Fremont, has already been quoted saying that he looks forward to using the new powers to target “people who would write against… the Islamic religion… on a website or on a Facebook page.”

It is possible that the whole thing is simply a money-making exercise – a more refined version of the old trick of putting up tiny speeding signs and then squeezing the cash out of every unwitting transgressor. After all, the QHRC will be able to apply for a court order “requiring [the culprit] to cease” his speech and will also be able to impose a fine of up to $10,000 for having “disseminated such speech.” The Human Rights Tribunal will be able to decide on each occasion how much money it wants.

1245Jacques Fremont, head of the Quebec Human Rights Commission, has been quoted saying that he will use his new powers to target “people who would write against… the Islamic religion… on a website or on a Facebook page.” (Image source: CRDP video screenshot)

The law is so bad, the bureaucrats involved so dispiritingly awful, that it really is enough to make one move to Canada to help bring this awful law crashing down Even if you have never previously been to the country, any self-respecting free speech warrior will surely be feeling this same instinct. Certainly there will be unpleasant times ahead. The Tribunal is planning to keep a publicly available list of people found guilty of “hate speech” — like a sex-offender database. Presumably this means that members of the public can check that they are not living in the proximity of anybody who is likely to express him-or-herself with words. So we might all have to be put either in some free speech ghetto where nice happy Canadians who don’t like free expression don’t have to hear us. Or perhaps we will have to fan out and be distributed across the country, so long as we stay far enough away from any places of learning, radio studios and the like. Best of all is that the members of the Commission do not have to wait for anybody to complain to them before they act. The Commission is allowed to head out and search for things that are offensive all by itself. One must wonder whether they may just – wholly unforeseeably – be a government department which continuously finds work to justify its existence?

The first test might be to see whether we are able to identify why Michael Zehaf-Bibeau stormed the Ottawa Parliament last year and shot a Canadian soldier on ceremonial duty at the nation’s war memorial. It is hard to see how any reporting of this attack could not in some way be deemed offensive to some Muslim somewhere or to some portion of the Islamic faith, and so I am sure that Monsieur Fremont will agree that the safest thing to do is either not to report an attack on the Canadian Parliament or to ensure that all papers or individuals who mention such an attack are immediately fined $10,000 and put on the Hate-Speech-offenders list for doing so. Might it not in fact be more convenient for the Tribunals if they simply put all writers on a system of direct-debit and levy the fine on absolutely everyone after any terrorist attack?

But then we can start to ask all the questions we have all gotten so used to not being able to ask in recent years. Will Monsieur Fremont and Minister Vallee allow anybody to write about contemporary anti-Semitism or the most virulent forms of contemporary homophobia? Admittedly these are minority interests and would never come under the purview of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunals, but they may come up at some point on somebody’s social media profile or the national press. In which case, will the relevant authorities ensure that no gay or Jewish person is allowed to identify this phenomenon? Or if someone does, will it be possible to ensure that he desists through a system of fines and list-shaming?

In the last decade, the Canadian system made itself look a fool to the world. We had hoped that the country had learned that for most of the civilized world blasphemy laws are meant to be a thing of the past. But after the latest events in Quebec we will no longer be fooled. The whole world will be able to see that in Canada blasphemy laws are a thing of the future.

Is Europe Losing Control Over Its Destiny?

September 13, 2015

Is Europe Losing Control Over Its Destiny? Gatestone InstituteSoeren Kern, September 13, 2015

  • The move by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels to force European countries to throw open their borders — and to require them to provide migrants with free clothing, food, housing and healthcare for an indefinite period of time — not only represents an audacious usurpation of national sovereignty, it is also certain to encourage millions of additional migrants from the Muslim world to begin making their way to Europe.
  • “We are not facing a refugee crisis, we are facing a migration crisis… Let us not forget that those arriving have been raised in another religion, and represent a radically different culture. Most of them are not Christians, but Muslims. This is an important question, because Europe and European identity is rooted in Christianity. Is it not worrying in itself that European Christianity is now barely able to keep Europe Christian? If we lose sight of this, the idea of Europe could become a minority interest in its own continent.” — Prime Minister Viktor Orbán of Hungary.
  • “[T]he continent is experiencing a mass movement of people not seen since the aftermath of the Second World War. Unlike the end of the war, however, none of the masses currently on the move is European… The control over one’s own borders is one of the most important characteristics — and responsibilities — of a modern state. Countries lose control over their destinies and even cease to exist when they lose control over who gets in.” — Arthur Chrenkoff, New York Observer.
  • Statistics show that of the 625,920 people who applied for asylum in the European Union in 2014, only 29.5% were from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.
  • “If you do not like it, just go away.” — Czech Republic President Milos Zeman, commenting that no one had invited migrants to his country, but once they arrive, they should respect the rules of his country or leave.
  • “The lesson for the United States is that reducing our global influence does not increase international peace and security. Quite the opposite. Obama’s retreat from the Middle East, whether in the aftermath of Libya, his disinterest in the Islamic State’s continuing rise, or his surrender to Iran’s nuclear-weapons program, are all part of the larger pattern.” — Ambassador John R. Bolton, Fox News Opinion.
  • “Since Slovakia is a Christian country, we cannot tolerate an influx of 300,000-400,000 Muslim immigrants who would like to start building mosques all over our land and trying to change the nature, culture and values of the state…. If we do not start telling the truth about migration, we will never move from this spot.” — Prime Minister Robert Fico, Slovakia.

The European Commission, the powerful administrative arm of the European Union, has unveiled a controversial plan that would compel EU member countries to accept 160,000 migrants and refugees from the Middle East and North Africa.

The move by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels to force European countries to throw open their borders — and to require them to provide migrants with free clothing, food, housing and healthcare for an indefinite period of time — not only represents an audacious usurpation of national sovereignty, it is also certain to encourage millions of additional migrants from the Muslim world to begin making their way to Europe.

The migration proposal, announced on September 9, would “share” 120,000 migrants currently holed up in Greece, Hungary and Italy with other countries in the European Union. This number is in addition to previous demands by the European Commission that 40,000 Syrian and Eritrean migrants be relocated from Greece and Italy.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose open-door immigration policy is partly responsible for fueling the rush of migrants to Europe, has already warned that the European Commission’s plan is “merely a first step” and that Europe may have to accept even bigger numbers. German Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel said that Germany could take 500,000 migrants annually for “several more years.”

1243Welcome to Germany! At left, German Chancellor Angela Merkel. At right, some of the hundreds of migrants who arrived in Munich on September 12, 2015.

It remains unclear just how many of the migrants arriving in Europe are refugees fleeing warzones, and how many are economic migrants seeking a better life in the West. Statistics show that of the 625,920 people who applied for asylum in the European Union in 2014, only 29.5% were from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.

German officials have admitted that 40% of the migrants arriving in the country in 2015 are from the Balkans, including Albania, Kosovo and Serbia, which implies that at least half of those arriving in Germany this year are economic migrants fleeing poverty not war.

Critical observers are describing the migration chaos engulfing Europe in apocalyptic terms: an “unstoppable demographic revolution,” a “total Armageddon scenario,” and an “exodus of biblical proportions.”

What follows is a selection of quotes and commentary from a variety of political leaders and opinion-shapers in Europe and elsewhere about the consequences of untrammeled immigration from the Muslim world.

In Britain, Nigel Farage, the leader of the Eurosceptic UK Independence Party (UKIP), spoke to the BBC Radio 4’s Today program. He said:

“The problem we’ve got is we’ve opened the door to an exodus of biblical proportions meaning millions and millions of refugees. We’ve lost sight of what it is to be a refugee. How many millions does Europe want to take? That is the question.

“Genuine refugees have tended to be groups of people, ethnic groups or religious groups who were directly under persecution and were fleeing in fear of their lives. The problem we’ve got now if you look at the definition of the EU’s common asylum policy, it includes anyone fleeing from a war-torn country, and it even includes people fleeing extreme poverty.”

British MEP Janice Atkinson, said:

“Nobody voted for illegal immigration. Plenty of people voted to put us here to oppose it. The hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants overwhelming our borders and our capacities to cope are exactly that — illegal.

“Let’s be clear about another thing: despite what the human rights industry and the massed ranks of taxpayer-funded charities and lobby-groups repeat, this is not a refugee crisis but a massive crisis of illegal immigration which must be resisted for what it is.”

English author and journalist Peter Hitchens, in an essay titled, “We won’t save refugees by destroying our own country,” wrote:

“Actually we can’t do what we like with this country. We inherited it from our parents and grandparents and we have a duty to hand it on to our children and grandchildren, preferably improved and certainly undamaged. It is one of the heaviest responsibilities we will ever have. We cannot just give it away to complete strangers on an impulse because it makes us feel good about ourselves….

“Thanks to a thousand years of uninvaded peace, we have developed astonishing levels of trust, safety and freedom…. I am amazed at how relaxed we are about giving this away.

“Our advantages depend very much on our shared past, our inherited traditions, habits and memories. Newcomers can learn them, but only if they come in small enough numbers. Mass immigration means we adapt to them, when they should be adapting to us….

“So now, on the basis of an emotional spasm, dressed up as civilization and generosity, are we going to say that we abandon this legacy and decline our obligation to pass it on, like the enfeebled, wastrel heirs of an ancient inheritance letting the great house and the estate go to ruin?

“I can see neither sense nor justice in allowing these things to become a pretext for an unstoppable demographic revolution in which Europe (including, alas, our islands) merges its culture and its economy with North Africa and the Middle East. If we let this happen, Europe would lose almost all the things that make others want to live there.”

British MEP Daniel Hannon warned that Germany’s open-door immigration policy was drawing ever more migrants to Europe. He wrote:

“The belief that Germany is relaxing its policy is bound to lead to a level of migration that surpasses anything seen so far. Refugees and economic migrants will be thrown together in a rush. Some will be trampled, and some boats will be overturned. But many more will reach Italy and Greece. Eventually, the front-line EU states will stop trying to enforce the rules, and will simply wave new arrivals across their territory, tempting even more into attempting the crossing.”

The London-based Financial Times lamented the lack of a unified European response to the migration crisis:

“This has been a miserable summer for European ideals. From a bloc founded in the pursuit of peace have emerged frightful images of refugees suffocating on motorway lay-bys, squalid makeshift camps, lifeless toddlers washed ashore, burning asylum centers, serial numbers penned on forearms, the sight of black-clad police pepper spraying families fleeing war. Inundated with asylum seekers, yet lacking the central functions to cope, Europe is divided over what to do. Higher walls? Welcome mats? Is this a national problem or should the burden be shared?

British political scientist Anthony Glees accused the German government of rank hypocrisy for demanding that Greece comply with the strict letter of EU law to obtain a financial bailout, but that same German government unilaterally dispensed with EU law to open Europe’s borders wide open to hundreds of thousands of migrants from the Muslim world. He said:

“Europe’s tectonic plates will move if Germany behaves as a hippie state, guided only by feelings. Prime Minister David Cameron said, quite rightly, in my opinion, that the United Kingdom must act not only with the heart, but also with the head. And the question in the UK is that if Frau Merkel now pursues this policy, a very different policy which it pursued vis-à-vis Greece, where will this end? The UK already intervenes militarily in the fight against the so-called Islamic State. Germany, however, has kept its distance from these things. But then at the same time to say to desperate people in Syria and Iraq, please come to the Federal Republic of Germany, many Britons view this as nonsensical. This will have no end!

“I think it may be that Germany still has historical feelings that are completely absent in Britain. It may be that in 2015, there are still memories of what happened with refugees before the Second World War (1938/1939). But in Britain, where we are currently not only fighting terrorism, not only coping with the problem of economic migrants, but also coping with the humanitarian problem, the German approach seems sloppy and not properly thought through, especially when it comes to Europe when the Germans do not abide by the rules. One may think whatever they might about the Hungarian government, but the rules are there, and if Germany does not comply with the rules, the entire Union is in danger of falling apart.

In Brussels, the self-proclaimed capital of Europe, the president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, insisted that immigration from Muslim countries would be a solution to Europe’s demographic decline. He said:

“Let us not forget, we are an ageing continent in demographic decline. We will be needing talent. Over time, migration must change from a problem to be tackled to a well-managed resource. To this end, the Commission will come forward with a well-designed legal migration package in early 2016.”

During the so-called State of the European Union address on September 9, Juncker said that there was no difference between Christian, Jewish and Muslim migrants. He said:

“Europe has made the mistake in the past of distinguishing between Jews, Christians and Muslims. There is no religion, no belief and no philosophy when it comes to refugees.”

Although unemployment is rampant within the European Union, especially among young Europeans, Juncker said:

“I am strongly in favor of allowing asylum seekers to work and earn their own money whilst their applications are being processed. Labor, work, being in a job is a matter of dignity…so we should do everything to change our national legislation in order to allow refugees, migrants, to work since day one of their arrival in Europe.”

In the Czech Republic, President Milos Zeman said that no one had invited migrants to his country, but once they arrive, they should respect the rules of his country or leave. He said:

“If you do not like it, just go away. Someone may consider it appealing to the worst instincts, but this is the same stance that Hungarians share when they are building a fence against Serbia, and Americans who have built a fence on its border with Mexico.”

In Denmark, Andreas Kamm, the secretary general of the Danish Refugee Council (Dansk Flygtningehjælp), warned that the current refugee crisis could lead to total collapse of European society. In an interview with the newspaper Jyllands-Posten, Kamm said he believes that Europe is facing “a total Armageddon scenario.” He added:

“We are experiencing a historical imbalance between the very high numbers of refugees and migrants and the global capacity to provide them with protection and assistance. We are running the risk that conflicts between the migrants and local populations will go awry and escalate. The answer cannot be that Europe imports surplus populations. We cannot be required to destroy our own society.”

Danish Finance Minister Claus Hjort Frederiksen said: “I’m most indignant over the Arab countries who are rolling in money and who only take very few refugees. Countries like Saudi Arabia. It’s completely scandalous.”

In Germany, Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière, in an interview with Die Zeit, said:

“The migration crisis presents a formidable challenge. It is bigger than any of us have previously thought — socially, politically, economically, culturally…. Now we will get hundreds of thousands of Muslims with an Arab background. According to what I am told by my French colleague, this is a significant difference as far as integration is concerned…. I am being told that between 15% and 20% of the adult migrants are illiterate.

“We must get used to the idea that our country is changing. School, police, housing, courts, health care, everywhere! We also need an amendment to the constitution. And all this has to happen very quickly, within weeks! This will require a huge change in our established way of thinking.”

In an interview with Politico, Josef Joffe, a normally astute Jewish-German intellectual who is the publisher of the newspaper Die Zeit, seemed completely oblivious to the long-term consequences of importing hundreds of thousands of Muslims to Germany, when he said:

“It is a true miracle. Our poster-boy refugee is now the Syrian doctor who combines educational achievement with moral obligation, given the unspeakable cruelty against civilians in the Syrian war. Germany, like the countries of English settlement, is turning into an Einwanderungsland, a country of immigration, accepting different colors, faiths and origins. So Germany is evolving into a kind of America, where you need not be born as American, but can become one. It is a mental and emotional revolution.”

In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán warned of the “explosive consequences” of culture clash between Europe and migrants from the Muslim world. In a September 3 essay published by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Orbán wrote:

“To understand what we must do, we need to grasp the true nature of the situation we are facing. Europe is not in the grip of a ‘refugee problem’ or a ‘refugee situation,’ but the European continent is threatened by an ever mounting wave of modern-era migration. Movement of people is taking place on an immense scale, and from a European perspective the number of potential future immigrants seems limitless.

“With each passing day we see that hundreds of thousands have been turning up and clamoring at our borders, and there are millions more intending to set out for Europe, driven by economic motives….

“We must acknowledge that the European Union’s misguided immigration policy is responsible for this situation. Irresponsibility is the mark of every European politician who holds out the promise of a better life to immigrants and encourages them to leave everything behind and risk their lives in setting out for Europe. If Europe does not return to the path of common sense, it will find itself laid low in a battle for its fate….

“Let us not forget that those arriving have been raised in another religion, and represent a radically different culture. Most of them are not Christians, but Muslims. This is an important question, because Europe and European identity is rooted in Christianity. Is it not worrying in itself that European Christianity is now barely able to keep Europe Christian? If we lose sight of this, the idea of Europe could become a minority interest in its own continent.”

Referring to Hungary’s occupation by the Ottoman Empire from 1541 to 1699, Orbán said:

“I think we have a right to decide that we do not want a large number of Muslim people in our country. We do not like the consequences of having a large number of Muslim communities that we see in other countries and I do not see any reason for anyone else to force us to create ways of living together in Hungary that we do not want to see. That is a historical experience for us.”

According to Zoltán Kovács, a spokesman for Hungary’s center-right government, the EU’s response to the crisis has been a complete failure. He said:

“The EU does not differentiate between those who are in real need of help. Genuine refugees are pushed together with economic migrants. We are not facing a refugee crisis, we are facing a migration crisis. People are coming here from a hundred countries around the world. It is completely unacceptable that illegal means of movement are now institutionalized.”

In Slovakia, Prime Minister Robert Fico said that 95% of so-called refugees were actually economic migrants:

“We won’t assist in this folly with arms opened wide with the notion that we’ll accept them all regardless of whether they’re economic migrants or not. If we do not start telling the truth about migration, we will never move from this spot.”

Fico also warned of the consequences of untrammeled Muslim immigration. He said:

“Since Slovakia is a Christian country, we cannot tolerate an influx of 300,000-400,000 Muslim immigrants who would like to start building mosques all over our land and trying to change the nature, culture and values ​​of the state.”

In the United States, Ambassador John Bolton warned that Europe’s migration crisis is America’s problem too. He wrote:

“While Americans may believe that Europe, long disdainful of our own intense debate over border-security problems, is getting what it deserves, we should nonetheless focus on both the potential threats and lessons applicable to us.

“One critical cause of Europe’s illegal-immigration spike is the growing chaos across the greater Middle East. This spreading anarchy derives, in substantial part, from Barack Obama’s deliberate policy of ‘leading from behind’ by reducing U.S. attention to and involvement in the region. When America’s presence diminishes anywhere in the world, whatever minimal order and stability existed there can rapidly evaporate….

“For years, the central cause of population movements into Europe was economic: North Africans crossed the narrow Strait of Gibraltar or headed to France or Italy. Turks and Arabs entered through Greece and Eastern Europe. Once into the European Union, thanks to the Schengen Agreement, travel barriers are now almost nonexistent, and, as in the United States, illegal aliens can essentially travel freely….

“Spreading terrorism, armed conflict and collapsing political authority in the Middle East are now powerful causal factors equaling or exceeding continuing economic disparities. Europe fears being overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of people on the move, thereby losing control over decisions on who to admit and who to turn away. These concerns are legitimate, but there are deeper risks as well. Mirroring worries in Washington, there is a serious and rising Islamicist terrorist threat hidden within the tides of people seeking refuge.

“The lesson for the United States is that reducing our global influence does not increase international peace and security. Quite the opposite. Obama’s retreat from the Middle East, whether in the aftermath of Libya, his disinterest in the Islamic State’s continuing rise, or his surrender to Iran’s nuclear-weapons program, are all part of the larger pattern. Europe’s illegal immigration problem is our problem as well.”

Writing for the New York Observer, Arthur Chrenkoff wrote:

“As an unseasonably hot European summer gives way to autumn, the continent is experiencing a mass movement of people not seen since the aftermath of the Second World War. Unlike the end of the war, however, none of the masses currently on the move is European. As hundreds of thousands of people continue to arrive on Europe’s doorsteps and throng her roads and railway lines, many conservative commentators see a more apt, and more ominous, historical parallel in the Völkerwanderung or ‘wanderings of the peoples’ that foreshadowed the fall of the Roman Empire some sixteen centuries ago. Europeans have long historical memories….

“As we reflect on the vivid media images of boats and trains overflowing with desperate humanity, it is important to keep in mind two points: 1) The majority of the 350,000-400,000 immigrants who have arrived in Europe so far this year (these are the known numbers; no one knows how many enter undetected) are not Syrians. In fact, less than a third are, with the rest originating in a miscellany of African, Middle Eastern and South Asian countries. 2) The majority seem to be single, healthy-looking young men, which traditionally suggests economic motives for migration, rather than the fear of death or persecution.

“What is happening in Europe at the moment is not so much, or at least not predominantly, a refugee crisis but a crisis of European immigration policies.

Chrenkoff summed it up this way:

“The control over one’s own borders is one of the most important characteristics — and responsibilities — of a modern state. Countries lose control over their destinies and even cease to exist when they lose control over who gets in.”

 

PM Netanyahu’s Greetings for Rosh Hashana

September 13, 2015

PM Netanyahu’s Greetings for Rosh Hashana, via You Tube, September 13, 2015