Tag Archives: Middle East

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.

The Third Option For Dealing With Iran

By Farid A. Khavari, Ph.D.

Ratification of the nuclear deal with Iran does not eliminate the threat of war, but only postpones it while the Shia-Mullahs grow stronger.

Most people think there are only two options: accept the nuclear deal, or go to war with Iran. The nuclear deal will elevate the Shia-Mullah regime to the dominant power in the region with devastating results for the U.S. and its allies. War with Iran would destroy the global economy and bring death and suffering to millions.

However, there is a Third Option:  peaceful regime change by the Iranian people themselves, with no outside military action.  Conditions are ripe, and this kind of regime change can be accomplished rapidly and effectively. A friendly regime in Iran would eliminate the nuclear threat, end Iran’s support for international terrorism, stabilize the Middle East, secures energy supplies for the world, and more, as shown in the chart below.

 CONSEQUENCES OF THREE OPTIONS FOR DEALING WITH IRAN

REGIME CHANGE BY THE IRANIAN PEOPLE, NO WAR      IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL, POTENTIAL FOR WAR WAR WITH IRAN                          
Ends Iranian support for terrorism, replaced with a civilized, friendly regime consisting of experts in different fields. Makes the Shia-Mullah regime the top power, expands terrorism, leading eventually to war. Immediate disruption of oil and gas supplies and the global economy.
Establishes balance between Shias and Sunnis in the region, leading to weakening and eventual dismantling of ISIS/ISIL. Rise of terrorism and radical Islam worldwide, and control of Islam by the Shia Mullahs. Massive casualties on all fronts, millions dead and disabled.
Recognition of Israel by the largest country in the Middle East, with friendly relations and trade. Rising threat of annihilation of Israel and occupation of Saudi Arabia. Tens of millions of refugees.
Ends Iran’s drive to dominate the region and the threat to Saudi Arabia, Israel and Gulf states; blocks the spread of radical Islam to Europe and the U.S. Dominance of radical Shia Islam, and the end of kings and sheikhs in the Middle East. Collapse of the world economy.
Abolishment of torture and capital punishment; political and social freedom based on modern civil law, not Sharia Law. Rise of Sharia Law and execution of political opponents. Potential end of the civilized world as we know it.
Neutralizes Russian influence in the region. Gives Russia access to the Middle East and North Africa.
Protects the U.S. Dollar’s reserve currency status; continuing prosperity for the U.S. Weakens the U.S. Dollar as world reserve currency, leading to shrinking prosperity in the U.S.
Opens the huge Iran market for U.S. businesses, civilian and military; hundreds of billions of dollars in new trade agreements. Loss of the huge Iran market to Russia and China.
Ends the nuclear threat and defuses the nuclear arms race. Rise of nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
Secure, stable energy market for the world, especially for the U.S. and western allies. Insecure energy market worldwide.
Peace and prosperity for the Middle East, North Africa and the world. Rising social costs of all kinds for the world economy and growing poverty worldwide.
The lowest cost option of all, with the greatest benefits to the U.S., Iran, and the region. Regime change would cost less than $20 million.  Part of the $150 billion in frozen assets will be used to implement an economic plan which creates millions of jobs.This money is recovered from the booming economy. Most of the money is distributed to the people of Iran, boosting U.S. and European economies as well. Costs of this option are very high. Much of $150 billion of frozen Iranian assets ends up in Russia and China. At least $50 billion to protect and police the region, $10 billion or more per year related to refugees; $10 – $50 billion in foreign aid to Israel, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, and other friendly nations in the region; $2 – $5 billion over 10 years for monitoring nuclear activities in Iran. Would cost millions of lives and $10 Trillion or more, while destroying the global economy.

endofstory

Dr. Farid Khavari is a noted independent economist and author of 10 books, including the classic Environomics (1993) and Oil and Islam: The Ticking Bomb (1990) which predicted that Iran, not Saddam Hussein, would become the biggest threat in the Middle East. He is the creator of Zero Cost Economics and was on the ballot in 2010 and 2014 for Florida Governor.  More information is at www.zerocosteconomy.com Dr. Khavari can be contacted by email at fk@zerocosteconomy.com

Obama’s Negotiating Partner, Iran

When I hear the phony ‘war on women’ meme from those who use it to tar a certain political party, I just have to laugh at their righteous indignation.

You should see what a real war on women looks like. Brought to you by the Islamic goons currently running Iran. With the blessing of the nuclear proliferation co-conspirators, President Obama and Sec. of State John Kerry. (Bet you didn’t know that the Iranian negotiator, Kerry’s Iranian counterpart, is the father of the best man in Kerry’s daughter’s wedding.)

Here’s an account, by someone who used to live there, of what is going on in Iran, and the type of people Obama is dealing with. This was posted on the ‘American Policy on the Middle East and Iran’ FB group.

endofstory

By Farid A. Khavari

Under the former Shah’s regime, women had equal rights with men. Under the Shia-Mullah regime women’s rights have been eliminated completely, although they get some special treatment under the laws.

Boys of 15 years and girls of 9 are legally adults and subject to execution for crimes.

Out of over 120,000 political executions (mostly young people) since 1979, about one third were females. Since it is illegal to execute a female virgin, she must be deflowered before being hanged or stoned.

The Shia Mullahs legalize the rape of the woman to assure compliance with their version of holy law. These practices do not exist among the Sunnis.

Is The U.S. A Reliable Ally?

If Israel were to attack an Iranian nuclear site, whose side would President Obama, and the United States, be on?

From the “deal” under Nuclear Security . . .

10. Co-operation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems.”

Would the U.S. give intelligence to Iran in the event of such an attack? Would the U.S. attack Israel? Would the U.S. resupply Israel? Would the U.S. refuel Israeli jets.  Would the U.S. proved intelligence to Israel?

If I were Israel, I’d be looking elsewhere for an dependable ally. From this agreement, it is obvious that Obama has switched sides.

Link: Full text of Iran Nuclear Deal