Tag Archives: Middle East

White House Admonishes Israel, Again

After two Palestinians killed 4 diners in a Tel Aviv restaurant and wounding others before being caught alive, the New York Times writes about how Israelis find solidarity in the aftermath of the attack.

The mainstream media isn’t covering the attack. But The State Department made a statement about it. Deputy Spokesperson Mark C. Toner made it clear how the administration feels about the attack and how if feels about Israel’s response to it.

He made it clear that the United States did not share the solidarity subsequent to that attack that Israelis are feeling. Instead, he admonished Israel five times to not over-react. Not to “escalate tensions any further.” Translation, leave them to fight another day. 

This is – I think a couple thoughts on that is – one is that we would just hope that any measures that Israel takes would be designed to not escalate tensions any further. But we certainly respect their desire to express outrage and to protect the safety of their people.

I think what I’m trying to say, Arshad, is that we understand the Israeli Government’s desire to protect its citizenry, or its citizens rather, after this kind of terrorist attack, and we strongly support that right. But we would hope that any measures it takes are designed to – would also take into consideration the impact on Palestinian citizens, or civilians rather, who are just going – trying to go about their daily lives.

And why I prefaced my response by saying that we understand their desire to protect their citizens and to send a message, but we would only urge that any measures that it takes be done under – with the consideration towards the many innocent Palestinians who are simply trying to go about their daily lives.

I think ultimately, first of all, that’s something for the Israeli Government to ultimately decide about, decide on. I’m just simply trying to give a full sense of the dynamics here, which are that this is going to affect thousands of Palestinian civilians who are, again, just trying to go about their daily lives.

Said, again – and let me be very clear – we condemn yesterday’s attack. We completely understand the right of Israeli authorities to ensure the security of their civilians and to carry out measures that they believe will, in fact, provide for that security. I would simply caution – and we’ve said this before – that in carrying out those kinds of measures that they do take into consideration the impact on innocent Palestinians and that they exercise restraint.

Exactly the wrong response to an ally responding to acts of war from a country, or territory, with an elected government that refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist and, wants them dead.  They are no longer renegade terrorists. They are a duly elected terrorist state that has been (with Iran’s help) lobbing missiles at Israel and using suicide bombers for decades. The Palestinian people are the ones who elected Hamas. They have democratically and simultaneously picked their fight and chose their fate. To make matters worse, which explains the administration’s adversarial attitude towards Israel, the United States has been and still is giving $400 million a year to the terrorist government in Gaza, Hamas.

Have you heard similar admonitions of France or Belgium after they were attacked? That the Obama administration is on the wrong side of the war on terror is not even debatable. The mere fact that Raqqa, the ISIS capital, has not been leveled two years ago, and their oil assets were not attacked (pin pricked as they were) until Donald Trump called them on it, is all the evidence you need to come to that conclusion. And that’s if you don’t count the previous post.

Links: Israelis Find Rare Moment of Solidarity in Aftermath of Tel Aviv Shootings  |  Tel Aviv attack: Israel clamps down on Palestinians  |  GAZA SOLUTION THE SAME  |  U.S. Foreign Aid to the Palestinians

It’s Obama’s Failure, Not Guns

Since the Orlando terrorist attack last weekend, the Obama theme ‘not to let a crisis go to waste’ has kicked in.

Don’t fall for this meme.

With Republicans and the National Rifle Association gun lobby under pressure to respond to the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history, Trump said he would meet with the NRA to discuss ways to block people on terrorism watch or no-fly lists from buying guns.

No. The response is, Obama’s failure to prosecute the war on terror has made us victims in our own cities. And the pressure belongs on him and Democrats. Not on Republicans and the National Rifle Association.

  • His failure to protect our borders.
  • His failure to enforce immigration laws,
  • his releasing of GITMO prisoners to return to the battlefield,
  • his insistence on scooping up thousands of Syrian refugees to bring them here, some of who are and will be (according to his own security apparatus) terrorists embedded among them.
  • His failure to keep tabs on terrorists he had his hands on, like the Boston bombers, the Fort Hood shooter, the San Bernardino shooters, and the Orlando shooter. All terrorists, all on the FBI’s radar, all on their list, and all let go. Credit Obama’s CVE program for that.
  • His plan to fight Islamic extremism is not to investigate Islamic extremism. That’s his program called the Countering Violent Extremism program.
  • And the media doesn’t ask why.

And that doesn’t even include giving Iran $1.5 Billion dollars to fund Hamas and Hezbollah and to expand their nuclear weapons program, or funding the Palestinian Authority and Hamas with hundreds of thousands of dollars each year, so they can attack Israel.

To deflect his failure to keep us safe, his response, is the same as Tyranny-vs-Libertyalways. Not to let a crisis go to waste. That’s what this is about. In this case, he makes the case for taking away our rights to defend ourselves, a constitutional right, for his inability to protect us from terrorism. In other words, to protect us from the terrorist invasion that he is creating, his response is to disarm law-abiding citizens. This might makes sense if you are a Mullah in Iran, or an ISIS terrorist. But it does make sense to Barack Hussein Obama.

Besides all that, there is no constitutional right to fly on an airplane. There is a constitutional right to protect oneself with a firearm. In fact, the right was intended to protect oneself from a tyrannical government. Not a deer or a duck. And never has this been as imperative since the forming of the Bill of Rights when we broke from the tyrannical Crown of King George III.

UPDATED: 6/16/2016, Countering Violent Extremism program added, explains our ineptness in fighting terrorism here.

Links: Senators, Trump open to ban on some gun sales after Orlando |  SIMILARITIES OF PRESIDENT OBAMA AND KING GEORGE III  |  House GOP Leaders Set To Endorse Obama’s Failed Anti-JIhad Strategy  |  Obama’s CVE Program Is an Outrage — and the Republicans Are Funding How not to counter domestic terrorism

Sec. Kerry Syrian Failure

In response to 140 Syrians killed by ISIS suicide bombers, Sec. of State John Kerry (who served in Vietnam) is touting what is being called a “provisional agreement” for a ceasefire.

One caveat. It’s not likely to be signed by all parties (Russia, Syria, and the U.S.) and if signed, is even less likely to be enforced.

ISIS isn’t part of this provisional agreement. Makes for a great photo-op though.

Link: ‘Provisional agreement’ reached on Syria ceasefire, Kerry says  |  Syria war: Blasts kill 129 in Damascus and Homs

Catholic Charities, UWF, Make Your Case!

Big in the  national and local news as well as on the campaign trail is the plight of, among others, the Syrian refugees seeking asylum in this country. Only, they’re not seeking refuge in this country. This administration is hell-bent on bringing them to the United States instead of supporting/protecting them in and around Syria. Some are coming here to Northwest Florida.

When asked if they would rather be home or here, they prefer to be home, or close enough to home so they can return after the  civil war is over and ISIS is destroyed.

ChrisRoot-sm
Catholic Charities of Northwest Florida President/CEO, Mr. Christopher Root

NGO’s are bringing the “refugees” and embedded terrorists here, financed with grants from the federal government. Attempts to speak to Catholic Charities CEO Christopher Root have fallen on deaf ears. Neither phone calls or in-person requests for a meeting on the subject of the refugees have been returned or acknowledged.

Mr. Root is hold up in a secure office building on Garden Street, just what you might expect for a non-profit Catholic charity. What?

In an attempt to get some transparency, and for Mr. Root to justify why, in spite of administration officials (and the terrorists themselves) saying that there will be terrorists among them, why he feels sacrificing our national security is necessary? I think the reason can be summed up in money. As in grant money. National security? Not the Catholic Charity’s problem.

Below is a letter-to-the editor submitted Dec 1, 2015. It has not been published yet. Meanwhile, there have been plenty of articles and other letters published that are sympathetic to bringing the refugees here. And, at the same time, disparaging those, like many in the country, who want no part of them coming here. Only the leading Republican candidates are talking about helping them in and around their own country in safe zones. People like President Obama are quick to say, “that’s not who we are.” Sorry, but importing terrorists to do us harm is not who we are. Democrats are all-in for bringing them here. After all, Muslims tend to vote 80% Democrat. What he means is, just like illegals flooding our borders on foot, building a permanent voting block is who he is. But that’s not who America is.

It is not just Christopher Root, but the talking heads at UWF who must justify why Syrians must come here, knowing of the high risk of terrorist embeds, and also how plucking them out of their country, continent, culture, and language will be more beneficial, for the refugees.

Letter to the editor follows.

endofstory

For the U.S. to participate in helping refugees from anywhere when they come here is one thing. But to take them out of their country, continent, culture, and language, to bring them here is not only presumptuous of us to know what’s best for them, but is endangering ourselves in the process.

They need help there, in safe zones, so they can return home when their civil war is over and the dust settles. We had our civil war and no-one left the country. For the Syrians to leave their own country would be taking the opposition to ISIL away. Taking Syria’s future away. That’s not compassion.

What the media and academe won’t tell you is, it’s not the U.S. government bringing them here. It is NGO’s (Non-Governmental Organizations) who are getting government grants who are bringing them here. Money talks. And money tends to change focus and re-arrange priorities from more important factors like our homeland security from the terrorist hotbed, Syria.

How about someone from an NGO like Catholic Charities, or a university like UWF, make their case that Syrian refugees are better helped with a one-way ticket here, instead of in and around their homeland?

 

Inadmissible Aliens Is Settled Law

Trump-Carter-Code-1182This law was written in 1952.  It was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, House and Senate, and signed by a Democrat president…  Everybody in the establishment in the political class, Republican, Democrat, media, you name it, is all claiming that what Trump said is dumb, stupid, reckless, dangerous, unconstitutional, while it is the law of the land.  And it was utilized by Jimmy Carter, no less, in 1979 to keep Iranians out.

In November the 1979 United States attorney general had given all Iranian students one month to report to the local immigration office. Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas, 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the United States, 1979.

A direct quote from the law:

(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Links: Trump’s “Nutty” Proposal Is Already the Law of the Land — and Was Used by Jimmy Carter During the Hostage Crisis | 8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens

Leaders: Trump And Cruz

Donald J. Trump​ managed to bring illegal immigration into public discourse and among all presidential candidates. Right out of the gate. It’s a national discussion we absolutely must have.

Now, Trump is leading the timid and weak again when it comes to asylum seekers, refugees, and immigration from terrorist-infested countries. As insensitive or Politically Incorrect as he sounds, his point is real, serious, and, real serious.

Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee says the enemy’s intent is to infiltrate the refugee populations. The enemy has announced that it seeks to infiltrate the refugee population. The head of the FBI says there is no good data with which to vet the refugee population.

People from both parties from the President on down continue to shift the emphasis away from the real enemy (radical Islam and Sharia Law) and onto Donald Trump, saying that what Trump proposed is UN-constitutional. It is not.

The religion clause pertains to public officials. This has nothing to do with public officials.

The equal protection clause has to do with the states. This has nothing to do with states.

The 1st Amendment is not extra-territorial. You don’t project it overseas.

Trump does not live in the PC world. He lives in Realville. And when an enemy declares war on you, ignoring the threat and their actions is not a winning strategy.

Until all those who are quick to criticize Trump and call for him to drop out of the race get serious about our national security, you can rely on the fact that they don’t have a solution to this problem. Instead, they want to import them. So far, only Ted Cruz and Donald Trump do.

What Homeland Security?

You can’t convince me that the GOP is the party of national security. That was the old GOP. Not after this common sense piece of legislation was voted down 10-89 in the Senate last Thursday.

Only 10 senators voted YES to a bill, sponsored by presidential candidate Rand Paul (R-KY) dubbed the “Stop Extremists Coming Under Refugee Entry (SECURE) Act, that would temporarily ban refugees from 32 Muslim-majority countries, as well as the Palestinian territories and North Korea, from entering the US. It was attached as an amendment to the Obamacare funding bill.

The amendment wasn’t based on a religious test, it was based on geography. The moratorium on accepting refugees from the “high-risk countries” listed in the bill would end once the Department of Homeland Security demonstrates compliance with six stipulations intended to weed out potential terrorists posing as refugees.

These are the countries and territories covered in the amendment, also known as the SECURE Act.

Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Egypt, Eritrea, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Morocco, Nigeria, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Yemen, The Palestinian Territories.

These are the only YES votes for the amendment. Good for them. They are the only senators that hold national security as a priority. Not one Democrat voted for it.
VOTE PARTY REPRESENTATIVE STATE
Yea   R   Sessions, Jeff AL
Yea   R   Shelby, Richard AL
Yea   R   Kirk, Mark IL
Yea   R   Moran, Jerry KS
VOTE PARTY REPRESENTATIVE STATE
Yea   R   Paul, Rand KY
Yea   R   Vitter, David LA
Yea   R   Cruz, Ted TX
Yea   R   Lee, Mike UT
VOTE PARTY REPRESENTATIVE STATE
Yea   R   Barrasso, John WY
Yea   R   Enzi, Michael WY

Senator and presidential candidate Marco Rubio (R-FL) joined with the Democrats and voted NO.

Democrats Make Your Case, Please!

Although I’m not holding my breath, I’m waiting for some Liberal, Progressive,  Democrat, Socialist, Communist, Marxist, or anyone,  to make the case for bringing terrorists into this country among the refugees which, administration and DOD experts, not the elected ones, say will happen.

And also, to make the case about why their help can not happen THERE instead of bringing them HERE, to a country that is predominately Christian (they are predominately Islamic) and that does not share their language or culture. And most likely, if Dearbornistan is any indication, a country that they probably don’t like very much. . . .

Clinton’s Religious Demagoguery

Hillary continues to paint the opposition (Republicans, not the Islamic radicals/terrorists) as being against Islam and Muslims. I figured turning her question right back to her would be fun.

Know why Democrats refuse to recognize radial Muslims as radical Muslims? Because Muslims vote 80/20 for Democrats.

To them, the risk of losing American lives is worth the votes they can gain from importing them here.

Below is Hillary’s tweet, and my reply.

 

Could have added Syria in my reply, but I was thinking of the Yazidis.

Saudi Arabia – The First Casualty Of The Iran Nuclear Deal

By Farid Khavari, Ph.D.

If the Iran nuclear deal is ratified by the U.S. Congress and Senate, the first guaranteed casualty would be Saudi Arabia followed by all the Sheikdoms around the Persian Gulf and Jordan; Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Yemen belong already to Iran’s sphere of influence.

The Middle East and North Africa will not be the same in the future for two reasons: 1) Either the Shia-Mullah regime of Iran will live up to the agreement, and stop all or most of their efforts to pursue developing atomic bombs; or 2) they would defy the agreement and continue developing the bombs. In either case, Iran’s subversive and terroristic activities will continue until the end goal is reached by taking over Saudi Arabia and Mecca, controlling the entire Islamic world, their huge wealth and the proceeds from the pilgrimage; a dream of the Shiites and the Shia mullahs since Imam Ali was not recognized by the Sunnis as the first caliph, which split Muslims into Sunni and Shia sects ending up with Sunni’s dominance.

Saudis are not only being threatened by the Shia mullahs; ISIS/ISIL is just as serious of a threat to the existence of the Kings and Sheiks in the Middle East. Since ISIS/ISIL wants to take Islam back to the early days of Islam, and restore the reign of caliphate in the Middle East and North Africa, Kings and Sheiks have no place in that concept.

Some uninformed people may welcome the demise of the Kings and Sheiks in the Middle East for their lavish lifestyle and imposing the Sharia laws, but neither Shia-Mullahs nor ISIS/ISIL are a right replacement.

A bleak future can be seen not only in the repeat of events after the demise of the Shah of Iran in 1979 (mass execution, exodus of educated people, refugees, etc.), but also the escalation of war and killing in the Middle East and North Africa and drastic rise of radical Islam due to rising poverty and despair in those regions.

Further, devastating development could take place if Israel’s existence is seriously threatened by the Shia mullahs forcing them to make use of an atomic bomb in that region, which would definitely lead to the most predicted Armageddon.

The Middle East and North Africa have plenty of huge and different problems. However, Iran’s nuclear deal and its ratification would not put a single dent in reducing other problems of that troubled region, much less resolving it.

If the U.S. policy-makers and their advisors were well-informed and knowledgeable about all the factors and forces involved with regard to economics, politics, religion, social issues, oil, energy, environment, etc., all the efforts would be made to change the Shia-Mullah regime of Iran by supporting Iranians to do it themselves and with no U.S. military involvement; it would definitely be the first major step toward a right direction. Below are the facts:

A friendly regime in Iran means:

  • Ending Iranian support for terrorism.
  • Balance between Shias and Sunnis in the region.
  • Ending the nuclear threat.
  • Blocking the spread of radical Islam to Europe and the U.S.
  • Recognition of Israel by the largest country in the Middle East, with friendly relations and trade.
  • Ending Iran’s drive to dominate the region and the threat to Saudi Arabia.
  • Neutralizing Russian influence in the region.
  • Protecting the U.S. Dollar’s reserve currency status.
  • A huge new market for U.S. business, civilian and military, hundreds of billions of dollars in new trade agreements.
  • Secure, stable energy supplies for the world,
  • Avoiding another protracted and expensive war in the Middle East.