Biden kills pipelines at home but promotes them for the Taliban
Biden kills pipelines at home but promotes them for the Taliban
By Michael Rubin
February 8, 2021
On his first day in office, President Biden canceled permits for the Keystone XL pipeline. Environmentalists and anti-fossil fuel activists should not have applauded his move.
After all, Canada will not stop extracting oil from the tar sands of northern Alberta. Instead, it will simply export oil over existing pipelines or to the Pacific Ocean, where the damage from a potential spill would be harder to address. Biden’s cancellation cost jobs and pushes Canada toward greater economic cooperation with China. It also shakes confidence in U.S. business. Who would invest in the country if any future administration can simply renege on deals with the stroke of a pen? Especially, that is, when the investments involved here reach into the billions of dollars?
Biden’s move was both political theater and an indulgence of his liberal base. But his hypocrisy was stunning even for a politician who has spent a half-century in Washington. Consider that while the Biden administration is killing a pipeline from which the public could benefit, Biden is promoting a pipeline to enrich both one of the world’s worst dictatorships and a group responsible for thousands of U.S. deaths.
The government has apparently brokered a meeting between the Turkmenistan government and the Taliban for a trans-Afghanistan pipeline to bring Turkmen gas across Afghanistan and Pakistan to India. If this scheme sounds familiar, it should: It was the same deal that now-Special Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad sought to make with the Taliban in the years before the Sept. 11 terror attacks when he was a consultant for the Unocal Corporation.
Khalilzad’s scheme was bad policy two decades ago, and it is even worse now.
Put aside environmental arguments and consider profit. Freedom House’s latest Freedom in the World report ranks Turkmenistan as among the world’s worst offenders, below even North Korea in terms of freedom and civil liberties. To promote the export of Turkmen gas is to entrench its regime even further. Part of the deal is then paying the Taliban protection money or transit fees for the pipeline transiting Afghan territory. Not only would this undermine the elected Afghanistan government even further, but it would also reward the Taliban for insurgency to the tune of tens of millions of dollars each month. Who needs Russian bounties on U.S. soldiers when the State Department has crafted a scheme to reward the Taliban beyond their wildest dreams?
One issue here is Khalilzad’s penchant for using diplomacy as a stepping stone to cut side deals. But the other issue is U.S. strategic interests. Perhaps a misunderstanding of the Taliban agenda was an excuse 20 years ago. It should not be one now. If the Biden administration says no to pipeline jobs in the Midwest, it should not then turn around and help enrich the Taliban to ship Turkmen gas to the Indian Ocean. It is time for Secretary of State Antony Blinken to call his envoy, end this hypocrisy, and to stop coddling some of the world’s most anti-American movements.
One of Obama’s former intelligence officials just paid the bail for someone who threw a Molotov Cocktail at a police car. Here are 37 reasons why I’m not surprised.
By Daniel Alman (aka Dan from Squirrel Hill)
June 4, 2020
Below is a photograph of a woman named Urooj Rahman, holding a Molotov Cocktail. She was just arrested for throwing a Molotov Cocktail at a police car.
Source for image: https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/former-obama-intelligence-official-helps-secure-bail-for-molotov-cocktail-throwing-nyc-lawyer/
A woman named Salmah Rizvi just paid Rahman’s bail.
Rizvi was an intelligence official for the Obama administration. She worked for the Department of State and the Departments of Defense.
Rizvi said the following to a judge:
“Urooj Rahman is my best friend.”
The Washington Free Beacon wrote of Rizvi: (the bolding is mine)
Rizvi entered the legal field after a career in the Obama administration’s intelligence community, where “her high-value work would often inform the President’s Daily Briefs,” according to her bio at the Islamic Scholarship Fund. The group gave Rizvi a law school scholarship sponsored by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a radical anti-Israel organization that has been tied to the funding of global terror networks.
During Rizvi’s time at the New York University School of Law, she was a fellow at Ramallah-based legal organization Al-Haq, which was founded to challenge the “legal status of Israel as an occupying power.” The group is best known for filing lawsuits aimed at delegitimizing Israel and providing legal backing for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement against the Jewish state.
The group has been criticized for its defense of the “right to resist” by Palestinian terrorist organizations and its defense and promotion of violent actions taken against Israel.
Rizvi was also provided a scholarship toward her law degree by the Paul and Daisy Soros Fellowships for New Americans, which was started by the now-deceased older brother of liberal billionaire George Soros.
This is disturbing, but it is not surprising.
Here are 37 reasons why I’m not surprised that one of Obama’s former intelligence officials just paid the bail for someone who threw a Molotov Cocktail at a police car:
1) When Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, Obama allowed Russians who had donated to her foundation to buy American uranium.
Iran and Russia are strategic allies, and much of Iran’s military weapons were manufactured in Russia, so there is strong reason to think that the Russians who bought this American uranium might sell it to Iran.
Charity Navigator, the United States’ most influential charity watchdog, said that legitimate charities spend at least 75% of their donations on their mission. However, according to Clinton’s foundation’s tax forms for the years 2009 through 2012, of the more than $500 million that was donated to the foundation, only 15%, or $75 million, was spent on programmatic grants. More than $25 million was used for travel expenses. Almost $110 million was spent on employee salaries and benefits. $290 million, almost 60 percent, was reported as “other expenses.” Because of this, Charity Navigator put Clinton’s foundation on its “watch list.” In addition, Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, said: “It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons.”
If these Russians were truly interested in helping the causes of AIDS, famine, clean water, global warming, etc., there are plenty of other charities that they could have given to, which would have spent 75% of the money on these causes, instead of 15%. The only reason these Russians donated to Clinton’s foundation was because they wanted permission to buy American uranium, which they may end up selling to Iran.
2) The countries of Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, and Algeria all donated money to Clinton’s Foundation when Clinton was Secretary of State, at a time when these countries were attempting to conduct business with the U.S. government.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution states:
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
In addition, the State Department had the following rules when Clinton was Secretary of State:
Executive branch employees are subject to restrictions on the gifts that they may accept from sources outside the Government. Unless an exception applies, executive branch employees may not accept gifts that are given because of their official positions or that come from certain interested sources (“prohibited sources”).
A prohibited source is a person (or an organization made up of such persons) who: is seeking official action by, is doing business or seeking to do business with, or is regulated by the employee’s agency, or has interests that may be substantially affected by performance or nonperformance of the employee’s official duties.
Donations that foreign governments had given to Clinton’s foundation were used to pay for first class flights for Clinton, even though she was not an employee of the foundation when those flights took place. This is a clear and obvious violation of the Constitution’s prohibition against federal officials accepting money or gifts from foreign governments.
3) In 2011, the Obama administration criticized Algeria’s government for imposing “restrictions on freedom of assembly and association,” tolerating “arbitrary killing,” “widespread corruption,” and a “lack of judicial independence.”
However, in 2012, after the Algerian government donated $500,000 to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s foundation, the Obama administration authorized the Algerian government to buy “toxicological agents, including chemical agents, biological agents and associated equipment” from the U.S.
4) Boko Haram is a Nigerian terrorist organization. Gilbert Chagoury is a Nigerian businessman and diplomat. After Chagoury donated between $1 million and $5 million to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s foundation, Clinton’s State Department avoided putting Boko Haram on its terrorist watch list. After Clinton resigned and John Kerry became the new Secretary of State more than two years later, Kerry put Boko Haram on the State Department’s terrorist watch list.
5) In 2013, a passenger who wanted to fly from New York to London on Kuwait Airways was illegally rejected by the airline for being an Israeli Jew. The passenger filed a discrimination complaint with the Obama administration. The Obama administration dismissed the complaint, claiming that the airline was subject to Kuwaiti law, and not U.S. law, even though the flight originated in the U.S.
6) In July 2014, the Obama administration banned U.S. flights to Israel, based on the Obama administration’s false claim that Hamas rockets were being fired at the Israeli airport. Once this lie was exposed, the flight ban was lifted.
7) In February 2015, the Obama administration declassified and published a top secret document from 1987 which confirmed the existence of Israel’s nuclear weapons program. However, the Obama administration did not declassify or publish other parts of the document, which pertained to Italy, France, West Germany, and other NATO countries. Prior to this, Israel had never officially confirmed or denied that it had a nuclear weapons program, and the U.S. had remained silent on the matter as a gesture of good will toward Israel.
8) In May 2015, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the IRS and the Justice Department had illegally discriminated against a U.S. charity because of its pro-Israel views.
9) After Nidal Malik Hasan shouted “Allahu Akbar!” and murdered 13 people on U.S. soil, instead of referring to it as “Islamic terrorism,” Obama said that it was “workplace violence.”
10) Mohamed Elibiary is a member of the Department of Homeland Security Advisory Council. In October 2013, a Twitter user asked him:
“show me just ONE example of an Islamic country where non Muslims are treated with equality.”
Elibiary responded by Tweeting:
“America and yes I do consider the United States of America an Islamic country with an Islamically compliant constitution. Move On!”
11) Although the Fort Hood shooter, the shoe bomber, and underwear bomber, and 100% of the 9-11 terrorists were all radical Muslims, the Obama administration enacted a ban on associating terrorism with radical Islam during training exercises of anti-terrrorism agents.
12) In January 2014, Commander-in-Chief Obama began allowing U.S. soldiers to wear Islamic beards, turbans, and hijabs as part of their military uniform.
13) In June 2014, Commander-in-Chief Obama banned Bibles but forced U.S. soldiers to adhere to Ramadan rules.
14) In September 2014, Obama falsely said the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant “is not Islamic.”
15) When Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, was 53 years old, he raped a girl who was either nine or ten years old at the time.
However, in September 2012, Obama said:
“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
16) In 2009, Obama said:
“My job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives.”
However, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which says that that is part of the President’s job.
17) In January 2015, an Islamic terrorist named Ahmedy Coulibaly murdered four Jews at Hyper Cacher, a kosher supermarket in France.
The Jerusalem Post reported:
Coulibaly called a French TV station from the kosher supermarket and said he was an al-Qaida terrorist and that he chose the kosher supermarket because he wanted to kill Jews.
However, Obama said these murders were “random.”
18) In July 2010, Charles Bolden, the administrator of NASA, said that Obama had told him that the primary purpose of NASA was “to reach out to the Muslim world.”
Although I can’t prove that Obama actually said this, I can’t think of any reason why Bolden would lie about it. Given Obama’s behavior in so many other instances, I am inclined to think that Bolden was probably telling the truth.
19) In September 2012, the Obama administration phoned YouTube to complain about an anti-Muslim video.
Ben Wizner of the ACLU said that of this:
“It does make us nervous when the government throws its weight behind any requests for censorship.”
Eva Galperin of the Electronic Frontier Foundation said of this:
“I am actually kind of distressed by this… Even though there are all these great quotes from inside the White House saying they support free speech….by calling YouTube from the White House, they were sending a message no matter how much they say we don’t want them to take it down, when the White House calls and asks you to review it, it sends a message and has a certain chilling effect.”
20) In June 2013, Rasmussen conducted a poll to find out what people considered to be the “nation’s top terror threat.”
Reporting on the results of the poll, Rasmussen wrote:
“Among those who Strongly Approve of the president, more fear the Tea Party than radical Muslims.”
21) In May 2013, the Obama administration sued Star Transport, Inc., a trucking company based in Morton, Illinois, because it fired Muslim truck drivers who had refused to drive trucks that were carrying alcoholic beverages.
22) The Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization. In April 2012, the Obama administration allowed members of the Muslim Brotherhood to skip TSA screening.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration gave a very invasive patdown to a three-year-old boy in a wheelchair, which caused the boy to tremble in fear. The Obama administration gave an aggressive patdown to a seven-year-old girl with cerebral palsy. The Obama administration said that a four-year-old girl was a “high security threat.” The Obama administration placed an 18-month-old girl on its no fly list. The Obama administration gave a patdown to Henry Kissinger. The Obama administration forced a 95-year-old cancer patient to remove her adult diaper and fly without it. The Obama administration ripped open the urostomy bag of a 61-year-old bladder cancer survivor, and forced him to fly covered in his own urine. The Obama administration harassed a sick 3-year-old boy, and caused him to miss his flight.
23) Sheikh Mohammad Rateb al-Nabulsi is a Muslim preacher from Syria who has called for homosexuals to be executed. In March 2014, Obama gave him a visa so he could spread his message to mosques in 17 U.S. cities.
24) In June 2009, Obama said:
“If you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.”
However, at the time Obama made his statement, there were 57 countries that had more Muslims than the U.S.
25) In June 2009, Obama said there were
“nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country”
However, in June 2009, PolitiFact wrote:
We are using numbers from the CIA Online World Factbook, a highly regarded government source for global statistics. It’s updated twice a month, and we’re relying on the latest version. By the World Factbook’s count, Muslims in the United States make up about 0.6 percent of the population. That’s around 1.8 million.
26) The Obama administration used taxpayers’ money to refurbish Muslim mosques in other countries.
27) Obama misquoted the Quran to give the false impression that it did not support murder.
28) In June 2011, Obama asked a Jewish singing group to remove its video from the internet.
29) In November 2014, after Palestinian terrorists murdered four Jews at a synagogue in Jerusalem, Obama said, “too many Palestinians have died.”
30) In 2010, Obama supported releasing Abdel Baset al-Megrahi from prison. Known as the “Lockerbie bomber,” Megrahi had been convicted of murdering 270 people.
31) A terrorist bomber named Rasmieh Yousef Odeh was convicted of murdering two Hebrew University students by putting a bomb in a box of candy on a grocery store shelf in Israel. Afterward, the Obama administration hired her as an Obamacare “navigator.”
32) Federal law requires the President to notify Congress 30 days before releasing terrorists. However, in May 2014, Obama released five “high risk” Taliban terrorists without giving advance notification.
At 3:25 in this video from June 2014, Marie Harf, the deputy spokesperson for Obama’s State Department, refers to these Taliban terrorists as “gentlemen.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWQ28sUBvwE
33) The Obama administration helped Hamas obtain the construction materials that it used to dig its terror tunnels, which it used to attack Israel.
34) This next one, by itself, should have been enough to have prevented Obama from being elected President. The fact that it did not stop him from being elected makes me worry very much about the moral values of the voters in this country. It’s not Obama that I’m scared of – it’s the electorate that put him into office.
In 1969, a guy named Bill Ayers co-founded a terrorist organization called Weather Underground.
In 1969, Ayers set off a bomb in Chicago at a statue that was dedicated to the city’s police. At the time of the explosion, no one was close enough to the statue to be killed. However, the explosion was so powerful that it broke almost 100 windows.
On March 6, 1970, three members of Weather Underground, including Diana Oughton (Ayers’s girlfriend) and Terry Robbins (Ayers’s close friend), were killed when they accidentally, prematurely set off a bomb which they were in the process of building, in their townhouse in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan in New York City. The explosion was so powerful that it destroyed the entire four-story townhouse.
In 1970, Ayers bombed the headquarters of the New York City Police Department.
In 1971, Ayers bombed the United States Capitol building.
In 1972, Ayers bombed the Pentagon.
Although charges were filed against Ayers for these bombings, the charges were later dropped because law enforcement agents had conducted wiretaps and property searches without warrants.
In 1995, when Obama was running for state senator in Illinois, Obama held a fundraiser in the living room of Bill Ayers’s home.
35) Before Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State, she had promised that she would publish all donors to her foundation. However, after she got the job, Obama allowed her to break that promise.
In addition, before Clinton became Secretary of State, she had also promised that she would let the State Department review all new or increased donations to her foundation by foreign governments. Obama allowed her to break that promise too.
Furthermore, for three consecutive years – 2010, 2011, and 2012 – Obama allowed Clinton to lie to the IRS by falsely saying that her foundation had not received any donations from foreign governments. In reality, during those three years, her foundation had actually been given tens of millions of dollars by foreign governments.
In May 2015, the reason for all of these lies and secrecy became clear, when it was reported that 16 of the countries that had donated to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s foundation ended up getting a 143% increase in arms sales from the U.S. government, compared to the amount of sales that had occurred during the same time frame during the Bush administration.
36) In July 2015, Obama signed a nuclear “inspection” deal with Iran. ABC News wrote the following about this:
UN inspectors can demand access to nuclear facilities on Iran military sites, but they aren’t immediate or even guaranteed. Any inspections at those sites would need to be approved by a joint commission composed of one member from each of the negotiating parties. The process for approving those inspections could take as many as 24 days, which critics will claim is enough time for Iran to cover up any non-compliance.
In other words, the deal allows for “inspections” that aren’t real inspections.
This “inspection” deal gives Iran as much as 24 days advance notice before inspections. The only reason for this that I can think of is to give Iran enough time to move the stuff they don’t want the “inspectors” to see. If anyone here has a different reason, please let me know in the comments section.
In addition, Iran must agree to any “inspection” before it can take place. Therefore, even after the 24 days of advance notice, the “inspection” might not happen at all. The only reason for this that I can think of is to prevent the “inspectors” from seeing the stuff that Iran does not want them to see. If anyone here has a different reason, please let me know in the comments section.
37) In July 2016, the Washington Times reported that Obama had given taxpayers’ money to an organization that tried to oust Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Note from Daniel Alman: If you like this blog post that I wrote, you can buy my books from amazon, and/or donate to me via PayPal, using the links below:
Note from Daniel Alman: I’d like to recommend that you visit Whatfinger News. It’s a really awesome website.
Dershowitz: Trump Had Even More Legal Justification Eliminating Soleimani than Obama Had with Osama Bin Laden
Dershowitz: Trump Had Even More Legal Justification Eliminating Soleimani than Obama Had with Osama Bin Laden
January 3, 2020
Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz said Thursday evening that President Donald Trump had even more legal authority to eliminate Qassem Soleimani than former President Barack Obama had to take out Osama bin Laden in 2011.
Dershowitz, speaking with host Joel Pollak and guest host John Hayward on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight, dismissed arguments that Trump lacked constitutional authority to act against General Soleimani, the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force.
Presidents have lawful authority to direct the killing of enemy combatants, explained Dershowitz.
“[Soleimani] was a combatant,” explained Dershowitz. “There’s no doubt that he fit the description of ‘combatant.’ He [was] a uniformed member of an enemy military who was actively planning to kill Americans; American soldiers and probably, as well, American civilians.”
“It was the right thing to do,” he added. “It was legally justified, and I think we should applaud the president for his decision. We send a very powerful message to the Iranian government that we will not stand by as the American embassy is attacked — which is an act of war — and we will not stand by as plans are being made to attack and kill American soldiers.
Dershowitz continued, “I think every president who had any degree of courage would do the same thing, and I applaud our president for doing it, and the members of the military who carried it out, risking their own lives and safety. I think this is an action that will have saved lives in the end.”
“President Obama would have done the same thing if the shoe were on the other foot, if he could prevent the killing of American soldiers by killing a combatant,” estimated Dershowitz. “[The president doesn’t] need congressional authorization, or any legal authorization … The president, as the commander-in-chief of the army is entitled to take preventative actions to save the lives of the American military. [Donald Trump] didn’t threaten a war. He didn’t start a war.”
Asked to respond to criticism of the attack by the likes of former Obama national security aide Ben Rhodes, Dershowitz said, “This is very similar to what Barack Obama did with Ben Rhodes’s authorization and approval — without Congress’s authorization — in killing Osama bin Laden.
“In fact, that was worse, in some ways, because that was a revenge act. There was no real threat that Osama bin Laden would carry out any future terrorist acts. Moreover, he was not a member of an official armed forces in uniform, so it’s a fortiori from what [Barack Obama] did and Ben Rhodes did that President Trump has complete legal authority in a much more compelling way to have taken the military action that was taken today.”
Philadelphia Islamic center teaches children to sing, “We will chop off their heads”
https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/05/philly-islamic-center-children-singing/
Video Of Philly Islamic Center Children Singing They Will ‘Chop Off Their Heads’ For Allah Sparks Investigation
May 5, 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHXCmEWxMY4
The Muslim American Society pledged Friday to investigate a videoed incident of children at its Philadelphia Islamic center singing about conquering Jerusalem and beheading people.
The Muslim American Society (MAS) Islamic Center in Philadelphia initially posted video of the children adorned in Palestinian scarves singing in celebration of “Ummah Day” in April, but translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) revealed the threatening nature of their lyrics.
The children sang about subjecting their enemies to “eternal torture,” beheading people, and retaking the Al Aqsa Mosque and achieving martyrdom as members of Allah’s army.
The Washington, D.C.-based MAS claimed the Philadelphia center simply failed to properly vet the songs and that they would investigate the incident following public outcry on social media after Fox News reported it on May 3.
“We will defend the land of divine guidance with our bodies, and we will sacrifice our souls without hesitation,” one girl says in the video. “We will chop off their heads, and we will liberate the sorrowful and exalted Al-Aqsa Mosque. We will lead the army of Allah fulfilling His promise, and we will subject them to eternal torture.”
The MAS issued a statement Friday apologizing for the songs, claiming the incident was “an unintended mistake.”
“While we celebrate the coming together of different cultures and languages, not all songs were properly vetted,” the statement read, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer. “This was an unintended mistake and an oversight in which the center and the students are remorseful. MAS will conduct an internal investigation to ensure this does not occur again.”
The statement appears to have since been removed from both the organization’s website and its Facebook page.
“These are not isolated incidents; they are happening in major centers of the country – including in Pennsylvania,” MEMRI said in a statement to Fox News.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez supports boycotting the New York Post because it published a photograph of the September 11 terrorist attacks after Ilhan Omar described the attacks as “some people did something”
Ilhan Omar recently said the following: (the bolding is mine)
“CAIR was founded after 9/11, because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties”
In response, the New York Post published the following on its cover:
The cover shows a photograph of the World Trade Center on fire after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
The top of the cover says:
Rep. Ilhan Omar: 9/11 was ‘some people did something’
The bottom of the cover says:
Here’s your something
2,977 people dead by terrorism
In response to this cover, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez supported a boycott of the New York Post. She made the following tweet: (original, archive)
The text of Ocasio-Cortez’s tweet states:
“Two years ago, Bodega owners across NYC (& cheered by neighbors) shut their shops citywide to protest Trump’s #MuslimBan.”
“Today, that same community is banding together to reject sales of the NY Post at bodegas citywide.”
“This is what real unity (& NYC solidarity) looks like”
Ocasio-Cortez made her tweet in response to a tweet by Dr. Debbie Almontaser, which said:
“Yemeni Americans held a 1,000 bodega strike against the #MuslimBan, tonight we just declared a boycott of the racist NY Post! Starting tomorrow morning Yemeni American merchants will be rejecting the sale of the NY Post! NY Post take your papers back! #BoycottNYPost”
Wow.
All the New York Post did was tell the truth.
And now a member of the U.S. Congress supports boycotting it for telling the truth.
And two members of Congress are grossly downplaying the severity of the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil in the entire history of our country’s existence.
That’s really despicable.
Here is proof of two different instances where Ilhan Omar supported terrorists
When Ilhan Omar was in the Minnesota state legislature, she voted in favor of letting the families of terrorists who die in terrorist attacks collect life insurance.
This isn’t the first time that Omar has defended terrorists. When she was in the Minnesota state legislature, she asked a judge to give “compassion” to nine men in Minnesota who had planned to join ISIS.
Now Omar is a member of the U.S. Congress.
3 people arrested in firebomb attack on Swedish synagogue
3 people arrested in firebomb attack on Swedish synagogue
December 10, 2017
HELSINKI — Three people have been arrested for allegedly throwing firebombs at a synagogue in the Swedish city of Goteborg, the second anti-Jewish attack in the Nordic nation in two days. Jewish groups condemned the attacks as “unconscionable” and demanded that authorities take action.
No one was injured in the attack late Saturday during a youth event at the synagogue and the adjacent Jewish center in Sweden’s second-largest city. Goteborg police spokesman Peter Nordengard said Sunday it is being investigated as an attempted arson.
The attack took place after some 200 people rallied late Friday in the southern city of Malmo, yelling anti-Jewish slogans and waving Palestinian flags to protest U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
Witness Allan Stutzinsky told the TT news agency he saw a dozen masked youths who threw what appeared to be firebombs into the garden surrounding the synagogue in Goteborg, but they failed to damage the building.
Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven and other top politicians condemned the incidents and authorities increased security around the synagogue and at Jewish centers in Stockholm and Malmo.
“I’m terribly upset over the attack on a synagogue in Goteborg yesterday and calls for violence against Jews at a demonstration in Malmo,” Lofven said Sunday. “There is no place for anti-Semitism in our Swedish society. The perpetrators will be held accountable.”
He urged “all democratic forces” in Sweden to work together to create “a tolerant and open society where everyone feels safe.”
On Saturday, Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom tweeted that those who called for Jews to be killed did something “totally unacceptable.”
The European Jewish Congress said Sunday it was “unconscionable that Jews are under attack on the streets of Europe” and urged Swedish and other European governments to take “strong punitive action” against perpetrators.
In Nordic neighbor Finland, national broadcaster YLE said police would raise security measures around the Helsinki synagogue.
The American Jewish Committee, meanwhile, condemned a separate protest Friday in Berlin, during which American and Israeli flags were burned in front of the U.S. embassy.
The director of the AJC’s Ramer Institute in Berlin, Deirdre Berger, called Sunday for an “unequivocal response” from German politicians, saying “the protests have to be condemned.”
Berlin police said 10 people were detained and 12 criminal complaints were filed over the protest of Trump’s decision to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Australian town caves in to Islamic terrorism by banning construction of synagogue
Bondi synagogue ban over terrorism risk leaves Jewish community shocked and furious
August 3, 2017
A local council has banned the construction of a synagogue in Bondi because it could be a terrorist target, in a shock move that religious leaders say has caved in to Islamic extremism and created a dangerous precedent.
The decision, which has rocked the longstanding Jewish community in the iconic suburb, was upheld in court this week as the nation reeled from the alleged airline terror threat and debate raged over increased security measures at airports and other public places.
UK Muslim radio station claims it broadcast 25 Hours of violent Al Qaeda speeches ‘by mistake’
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/07/08/radio-urging-violence-non-muslims/
UK Muslim Radio Station Claims it Broadcast 25 Hours of Violent Al Qaeda Speeches ‘By Mistake’
July 8, 2017
A Sheffield-based Muslim radio station has had its license suspended after broadcasting 25 hours of sermons “encouraging and condoning” violence against non-Muslims.
Ofcom investigated Iman FM after a complaint that the radio station had, during Ramadan, aired lectures by Anwar Al-Awlaki, an influential cleric killed by a U.S. drone strike in 2011.
The broadcasting watchdog said it had “serious concerns” over Iman FM’s decision to air the series of pre-recorded lectures by a “widely-known terrorist leader and al-Qaeda recruiter.”
The material “amounted to a direct call to action to members of the Muslim community to prepare for and carry out violent action against non-Muslim people,” according to Ofcom, which suspended the community radio station’s license and gave managers 21 days to explain themselves or have the channel shut down.
Ofcom further stated that the cumulative effect of al-Awlaki’s statements in the lectures broadcast would “condone, promote and encourage violent behaviour towards non-Muslim people,” the Star reported.
“Further, the lectures appeared to link violent acts of the past with actions that might potentially be taken today,” judged the regulator, taking the view that the content therefore amounted to a call to action which was likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or lead to disorder.”
Bosses at Iman FM, the mission statement of which is “equipping the generation towards a cohesive society”, admitted to having downloaded and broadcast Awlaki’s lectures during Ramadan, but claimed to be unaware of the hate preacher’s background.
The station said it had listened to 12 hours of the audio, which it “judged to be within the parameters [of the Broadcasting Code]”, but only samples of the remainder were checked because of time constraints.
The Ofcom ruling described this defence as ‘not credible’.
Iman FM’s chief executive Mohammad Mughal told the Daily Mail: “This is very, very sad because none of us had any idea this lecture was preaching hatred.”
A petition has been set up “in support of IMAN FM being allowed to carry on with its radio broadcasts and for Ofcom not to revoke its license,” on Change.org in response to the radio station’s suspension from air.
“As listeners we have never had any cause of complain [sic] against IMAN fm and the content has always been exemplary,” says the plea, which has been signed by nearly 300 people.
Here’s the “hate speech” video (i.e., speech against Islamic terrorism) that got a U.S. tourist arrested in Canada
Here are two videos by a YouTuber who calls himself “Wild Bill for America.”
The first video is a speech that he gave when he was in the U.S. In the speech, he criticizes Islamic terrorism.
In the second video, he explains how he was arrested for “smuggling hate speech” in Canada because he was planning to give the exact same speech in Canada, and he had the text of the speech on his IPAD that he was carrying with him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZUmYQYDaw8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwaMpTLUmX0
Video shows CNN handing signs to Muslims in order to stage a fake protest against terrorism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ObbTX_nMGk
After terrorists scream “This is for Allah!” and murder a bunch of people, CNN says, “We don’t know… their motives”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/06/cnn-on-london-jihad-attacks-we-dont-know-their-motives
CNN on London jihad attacks: we don’t know “their motives”
June 3, 2017
The Muslim attackers were screaming “This is for Allah,” but CNN doesn’t know their motives. For CNN and the rest of the establishment propaganda media, “This is for Allah” means “This has nothing to do with Islam.”
“London terror attacks: What we know and don’t know,” by Hilary Whiteman, CNN, June 3, 2017:
(CNN) Details were emerging in the early hours of the United Kingdom’s Sunday morning about what we now know are two “terrorist incidents” in central London….
At 10:08 p.m. Saturday night, London Metropolitan officers responded to reports of a vehicle colliding with pedestrians on London Bridge.
Witness Mark Roberts said he said saw a van speeding across London Bridge towards London Bridge underground station, which suddenly swerved, bounced off the pavement and hit several pedestrians. He said he heard what sounded like gunfire about five to 10 minutes later.
Another witness, Brad Myers, had just left London Bridge when he heard a “boom” behind him, which he thinks was the sound of a car hitting the guardrails or other vehicles. He said he saw someone jump into the water to avoid being hit.
Multiple ambulances were sent to the scene with the first team arriving within six minutes, according to the London Ambulance Service. An advanced trauma team was also sent by car.
As emergency services rushed to respond, reports came in of multiple stabbings at Borough Market, a popular gourmet food market with restaurants that were open and busy on a Saturday night.
Witness Elsbeth Smedley told CNN that a man ran into Elliot restaurant in Borough Market, and stabbed two people before running out.
As they responded to the two incidents, police were then called to a third potential attack — reports of an “incident” in nearby Vauxhall, a residential area, which occurred just before 1 a.m. (8p ET). Police confirmed it was not related.
At 00.25 a.m., police announced the two incidents at London Bridge and Borough Market were “terrorist incidents.” People were warned to avoid the area while emergency vehicles attended to the incidents which police described as “ongoing.”
British Prime Minister Theresa May calls the London Bridge incident a “potential act of terrorism.” On Sunday, she’ll chair a meeting of the government’s Cobra emergency committee.
What we don’t know
How many attackers there were, their motives and whether they were acting together are all questions being asked.
The proximity of the attacks and the timing seem to suggest they were coordinated, but police have not confirmed that….
Manchester mayor Andy Burnham falsely said that Salman Abedi, the Muslim terrorist suicide bomber who murdered 22 people, was “not a Muslim”
Manchester Mayor: Bomber Was A Terrorist, Not A Muslim
May 24, 2017
Andy Burnham insisted people should not turn on the Muslim community in the aftermath of the Manchester terror attack.
Salman Abedi killed 22 people, including children as young as 8, when he detonated a suicide bomb outside the Manchester Arena on Monday night.
He was born and raised in Manchester to Libyan parents and worshipped in a mosque in Didsbury, not stopped going because the imam was speaking out against ISIS.
But the Mayor of Manchester insisted that this man was a terrorist who had noting to do with Islam.
Speaking to Nick Ferrari on LBC, he said: “Manchester always reacts in the right way and we did that last night. People came together.
“The message that I would want to get over – and this is how the vast majority of people feel – this man was a terrorist, not a Muslim.”
“He does not represent the Muslim community. We’ve got to keep that distinction in mind all the time. This was an unspeakable act.”
“The worst thing that can happen is that people use this to blame an entire community, the Muslim community.”
“In my view, the man who committed this atrocity no more represents the Muslim community than the individual who murdered my friend Jo Cox represents the white, Christian community.”
The media should stop saying that Islamic terrorists “were radicalized”
This Washington Post headline states:
“Suspect in Berlin market attack was radicalized in an Italian jail.”
This USA today article is titled:
“London attack: More arrests as detectives probe how killer was radicalized.”
This Wall St. Journal article is called:
“Minnesota Mall Attacker Likely Was Radicalized, Officials Say.”
This New York Post article has the headline:
“Mosque members warned feds that accused killer was radicalized.”
This article form the Local is called:
“Isis suspect was radicalized in Germany, brother claims.”
This article from the Guardian is named:
“FBI and Obama confirm Omar Mateen was radicalized on the internet.”
This Breitbart headline says:
“Spanish Authorities: Arrested Mexican Jihadi Was Radicalized near Texas Border.”
This CNN article is called:
“Why bin Laden was radicalized.”
Using the words “was radicalized” when referring to Islamic terrorists is inaccurate for two reasons.
First, it falsely implies that they are victims. It’s as if while they were walking down the street minding their own business, they ended up breathing in a bacteria or virus and getting an infectious illness.
Secondly, it falsely implies that they don’t have free will. It’s as if they have no choice when they murder innocent people.
Words matter.
Those who work in the media should choose more accurate ways of reporting on Islamic terrorists.
Apparently, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman has never heard of the Boston Marathon bombing, the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, the D.C. snipers, etc.
New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman recently tweeted the following question:
https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/825212767498027009
“Other than San Bernardino shootings, has there been a terrorist attack involving a non-US-born attacker since 9/11?”
I usually say that asking questions is a good thing, because I am very much in favor of curiosity and learning.
However, for a New York Times reporter to ask such a question in the year 2017 is actually a bad thing, not a good thing. For this person with this job to ask this question in this year proves that this New York Times reporter is completely clueless as to what has been happening in this country for the past decade and a half, and thus, is not qualified to hold the job of a New York Times reporter.
For the record, here are some terrorist attacks that happened in the U.S. after the 9-11 attacks, and involved at least one perpetrator who was an immigrant:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_failed_shoe_bomb_attempt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Los_Angeles_International_Airport_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._C._sniper_attacks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_UNC_SUV_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Times_Square_car_bombing_attempt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Virginia_military_shootings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Marathon_bombing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Chattanooga_shootings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Minnesota_mall_stabbing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_New_York_and_New_Jersey_bombings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Ohio_State_University_attack
German court says people named “Mohammad” were “justified” in setting fire to a synagogue, and gives them zero jail time
German court calls synagogue torching an act to ‘criticize Israel’
January 13, 2017
A German regional court in the city of Wuppertal affirmed a lower court decision last Friday stating that a violent attempt to burn the city’s synagogue by three men in 2014 was a justified expression of criticism of Israel’s policies.
Johannes Pinnel, a spokesman for the regional court in Wuppertal, outlined the court’s decision in a statement.
Three German Palestinians sought to torch the Wuppertal synagogue with Molotov cocktails in July, 2014. The local Wuppertal court panel said in its 2015 decision that the three men wanted to draw “attention to the Gaza conflict” with Israel. The court deemed the attack not to be motivated by antisemitism.
Israel launched Operation Protective Edge in the summer of 2014 to stop Hamas rocket attacks into Israeli territory.
The court sentenced the three men – the 31-year-old Mohamad E., the 26 year-old Ismail A. and the 20-year-old Mohammad A.—to suspended sentences. The men tossed self-made Molotov cocktails at the synagogue. German courts frequently decline to release the last names of criminals to protect privacy.
The attack caused €800 damage to the synagogue. The original synagogue in Wuppertal was burned by Germans during the Kristallnacht pogroms in 1938. Wuppertal has a population of nearly 344,000 and is located in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia.
The court said the men had consumed alcohol and there were no injuries to members of the synagogue.
A 13-year-old who lived near the synagogue and noticed the flames informed the police. Several days before the fire, a person sprayed “Free Palestine” on a wall of the synagogue.
After the local Wuppertal court decision in 2015, Volker Beck, a leading Green Party MP, said the “attack on the synagogue was motivated by antisemitism” and blasted the court for issuing a decision stating that the goal of the attack was to highlight the war in Gaza.
“This is a mistaken decision as far as the motives of the perpetrators are concerned,” he said, adding that the burning of a synagogue in Germany because of the Middle East conflict can be attributed only to antisemitism.
“What do Jews in Germany have to do with the Middle East conflict? Every bit as much as Christians, non-religious people or Muslims in Germany, namely, absolutely nothing. The ignorance of the judiciary toward anti-Semitism is for many Jews in Germany especially alarming, ” said Beck.
During the search for Anis Amri, the Islamic terrorist who murdered 12 people in Berlin, a German politician named Till Steffen prevented Amri’s photograph from being released in order to “prevent racism”
In my opinion, this politician should be charged with aiding and abetting a terrorist and murderer.
(more…)
Europe tells British press NOT to reveal if terrorists are Muslims
Europe tells British press NOT to reveal if terrorists are Muslims
October 6, 2016
Meddling Brussels has said the British press should not report when terrorists are Muslims in a slew of demands to the Government to crack down on the media.
A report from the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) found there was an increase in hate speech and racist violence in the UK from 2009 to March 2016.
Blaming the press, ECRI Chair Christian Ahlund, said: “It is no coincidence that racist violence is on the rise in the UK at the same time as we see worrying examples of intolerance and hate speech in the newspapers, online and even among politicians.”
The report makes a whopping 23 recommendations to Theresa May’s Government for changes to criminal law, the freedom of the press, crime reporting and equality law.
And despite the report not analysing coverage of the historic Brexit vote, Mr Ahlund saw fit to comment on the UK’s decision to leave the EU.
In a sweeping statement, he said: “The Brexit referendum seems to have led to a further rise in ‘anti-foreigner’ sentiment, making it even more important that the British authorities take the steps outlined in our report as a matter of priority.”
The report lays into the British press and urges the government to “give more rigorous training” to reporters.
In the 83-page report, the Commission said: “ECRI considers that, in light of the fact that Muslims are increasingly under the spotlight as a result of recent ISIS-related terrorist acts around the world, fuelling prejudice against Muslims shows a reckless disregard, not only for the dignity of the great majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom, but also for their safety.
“In this context, it draws attention to a recent study by Teeside University suggesting that where the media stress the Muslim background of perpetrators of terrorist acts, and devote significant coverage to it, the violent backlash against Muslims is likely to be greater than in cases where the perpetrators’ motivation is downplayed or rejected in favour of alternative explanations.”
Despite the creation of the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) in 2014 as an independent regulator for newspapers and magazines, the “ECRI strongly recommends that the authorities find a way to establish an independent press regulator according to the recommendations set out in the Leveson Report. It recommends more rigorous training for journalists to ensure better compliance with ethical standards.”
But as Britain prepares to leave the crumbling bloc, the Government waded in to defend freedom of expression.
In a written statement to the ECRI, the Government said: “The Government is committed to a free and open press and does not interfere with what the press does and does not publish, as long as the press abides by the law.”
ECRI is a human rights body of the Council of Europe, composed of independent experts, which monitors problems of racism, xenophobia, antisemitism, intolerance and racial discrimination.
The group writes reports on every member state every five years and says the documents are “analyses based on a great deal of information gathered from a wide variety of sources.
ECRI visited the UK in November 2015 as it gathered evidence for the report.
In a statement, ECRI said: “ECRI welcomed, among other things, the entry into force of the Equality Act 2010 and the generally strong legislation against racism and racial discrimination in the country, as well as the government’s new hate crime action plan and substantial efforts to promote LGBT rights in the UK which have led to a significant change in attitudes.
“At the same time, the commission noted considerable intolerant political discourse in the UK, particularly focusing on immigration. It said that hate speech continues to be a serious problem in tabloid newspapers, and that online hate speech targeting Muslims in particular has soared since 2013.”
Dan from Squirrel Hill's Blog 