BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA AND HIS
MUSLIM DICTATORS - WHO PAYS FOR THE PHONY OBAMA PRESIDENTIAL
LIBRARY THAT WILL NEVER HAVE HIS PAPERS?
"Under
the Iran deal, the Obama administration gave Iran access to $100-$150 billion
in frozen assets, as well as nearly $2 billion in cash (delivered by cargo
plane), some of which is thought to have funded Soleimani’s activities."
Obama Welcomed Terror Leader Behind Iraq Embassy Attack To White
House
January 2, 2020
Daniel
Greenfield
Democrats
and their media allies are spinning the attack on our embassy in Iraq as
Trump's Benghazi. The reality is that it's still Obama's Benghazi.
As this Daily Mail story reminds us
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7844623/Barack-Obama-welcomed-l...
Hadi
al-Amiri was Iraq's minister of transport under then-Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki and stood in the Oval Office as part of Maliki's delegation on a
visit to the White House in December 2011.
On
Tuesday, al-Amiri was among those leading the charge against the US embassy in
Baghdad when it was stormed and set alight by pro-Iran militants. US Secretary
of State Mike Pompeo shared a photograph of Amiri amid the rioters, condemning
him as an 'Iranian proxy,' and calling those shoulder-to-shoulder with him
'terrorists.'
The
head of a leading pro-Iran Shia faction, Amiri exerts great power within Iraq's
state-sanctioned Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) and was highlighted by
Pompeo among three other men as the ringleaders of the siege.
A
former guerrilla fighter who fought for Tehran in the Iran-Iraq War, Amiri has
been accused of terrorism against the US, of helping Iran to ship arms to
Bashar al-Assad in Syria and has been pictured bowing before the Islamic
Republic's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
Not that Amiri was getting special treatment. The White House of the
day had opened its doors to a legion of foreign and domestic Islamists. But it
also highlights the degree of collusion between Obama and Iran.
But who helped build up this
terrorist infrastructure? The Obama administration did. Beyond its illegal
foreign cash shipments to Iran and the sanctions relief, the PMFs benefited
from US foreign aid directed through Iraq's Interior Ministry.
Obama's
Benghazi in Baghdad
How
Obama's Iraq treason created ISIS and led to the attack on our embassy In Baghdad.
January 3, 2020
Daniel Greenfield
Daniel
Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an
investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic
terrorism.
When Shiite members of the Popular
Mobilization Forces (PMF) attacked the American embassy in Baghdad, in a
deliberate recreation of the attack on our embassy in Tehran that had ushered
in a new age of Shiite terror, the media was quick to label it 'Trump's
Benghazi'.
The parallels are certainly there.
BLOG: NO ONE BUT A LOBOTOMIZED FOOL SHOULD THINK ANY MUSLIM IS OUR ALLY!
In both Benghazi and Baghdad,
Islamist terror militias who we thought were our allies turned on the United
States. In both cases, there was nothing surprising or unexpected about this
inevitable development to anyone except foreign policy experts and the media.
And, in both Benghazi and Baghdad,
the Obama administration's policy of cultivating Islamic terrorists had come
home to roost.
The Islamists who attacked the
embassy were not Trump's allies, but Obama's allies.
When Hadi al-Amiri, the head of the
Badr Brigade, the former military wing of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq,
came to the White House, it was in 2011, not 2017.
The close IRGC ally was welcomed by Barack Obama, and played a
role in the embassy attack. The IRGC, Iran's global terror hub, had been listed
as a terror group by President Trump, a move resisted by Barack Obama dating
back to his time in the Senate.
Once in the White House, Obama's
policies so empowered and enabled the IRGC that in one of the most infamous
incidents in American history, members of the Islamic terror group captured and
humiliated American sailors. There is little doubt that the IRGC was the hidden
hand behind the embassy attack in Baghdad through its PMF proxies.
The rise of ISIS and the attack on
our embassy in Baghdad had their roots in Obama's backing for Iraq's Shiite
dominated government in Baghdad. The Bush administration had tried to unite
Sunni and Shiite Muslims into a political system that would sideline Al Qaeda
on the Sunni side and Iran on the Shiite side. I raqi civil society was probably always doomed, but
Obama's Iraq policy was to turn the country over to the terrorists.
Obama wanted to pull out of Iraq as
soon as possible. His plan for a quick pullout was to allow Iran a free hand in
Baghdad. Iraq's central government dominated by Shiite Islamists loyal to Iran
allowed Islamic militias backed and trained by Iran to execute gays and impose
Islamic law in the streets. The Sunni tribal leaders who had made the
'awakening' against Al Qaeda possible were ignored when they came to D.C.
seeking support against Iran.
While the media went on touting
Obama's incredible successes in Iraq, the country split into two terror camps.
While the Popular Mobilization Forces rolled up Shiite areas, Al Qaeda in Iraq
reinvented itself as ISIS.
Unlike President Trump, Obama chose
not to hit ISIS hard. Instead, after Iraq's military collapsed, his
administration's anti-ISIS strategy relied heavily on supporting the Shiite PMF
militias which included embedded Iranian forces.
Obama had helped birth the Islamic
State by backing Iran's takeover of Iraq. Forced to fight ISIS, he doubled down
on the same strategy. And that completed the takeover.
The marginalization of the Kurds,
whose attempts at creating an independent state were crushed by the Shiite
regime in Baghdad, and the Sunnis, who had been caught between Iran and ISIS,
ended military opposition to the Iranian takeover of Iraq.
But political protests against the
Iranian puppet regime broke out, leading to violent clashes between protesters
and PMF thugs, PMF attacks on Americans, American retaliation against PMFs, and
the attack on the United States embassy by the PMFs.
Iran's takeover of Iraq, like its
involvement in Yemen's civil war, in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza, had been funded
by the wages of Obama's nuclear sellout. The billions that the Obama
administration had directly and indirectly handed to the terrorists of Tehran
were used to fund soft and hard influence across the region.
The Iran deal didn't just mean that
the terror regime was able to continue building up its nuclear program, but
that it could increase its financial commitments to Hamas, help build up
Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and the PMFs in Iraq.
Iran had four things to offer its
Shiite (and occasional Sunni fellow travelers ranging from Hamas to Al Qaeda)
Islamist allies. These were weapons, training, a global network, and money. Of
these money was the most generic, but also the most important.
Islamic terrorism is only partly
built on the suicidal fanatics willing to die for Allah. It's mostly built on
amateur and professional killers who want to get paid.
Choke off the money and recruitment
drops
Under Obama, billions in foreign
currency were illegally flown into Iran on unmarked cargo planes, but Trump cut
off the cash.
The cash crunch not only weakened
Iran's regime, where fresh protests arose, but its terror networks, including
in Iraq, began facing their own cash shortages. And so Iran's rulers,
their IRGC hidden hand, and their Islamist PMF proxies decided to send America
and the protesters a message.
Earlier this year, the Trump
administration had sanctioned the South Wealth Resources
Company (SWRC), allegedly a key conduit for the IRGC's ability to smuggle
weapons and money in and through Iraq.
The sanctioning of the IRGC itself
had met with anger from the Badr Brigade and
Hadi al-Amiri. The conflict escalated with Kataeb Hezbollah, a PMF, attacking
Americans. The death of an American contractor in a Kataeb Hezbollah rocket
attack raised the stakes. President Trump struck back with airstrikes against
Kataeb Hezbollah. And Kataeb Hezbollah attacked the embassy.
Kataeb Hezbollah is another project
of the IRGC and is led by Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis who was part of the attack on
the embassy. Muhandis is the Deputy Commander of PMF who is linked to the 1983
truck bombing of the US embassy in Kuwait which, had it been better planned,
could have destroyed the facility.
After the airstrikes,
Al-Muhandis warned , that “the response to the
Americans will be harsh."
But who helped build up this
terrorist infrastructure? The Obama administration did. Beyond its illegal
foreign cash shipments to Iran and the sanctions relief, the PMFs benefited
from US foreign aid directed through Iraq's Interior Ministry.
Even as Iraq's Interior Ministry
was headed by a Badr leader trained by Iranian forces who had been arrested for
smuggling explosives used to attack American soldiers, our foreign aid kept
flowing through an Iraqi ministry run by terrorists.
The Obama administration was
funding terrorists to fight terrorism. It was the same disastrous scenario that
had led to the massacre in Benghazi.
The only difference was that the
blowback took longer to arrive in Baghdad than it did in Benghazi.
Obama's foreign policy operatives
and the media have blamed the embassy attack on Trump's pressure on Iran, rather
than on Obama's appeasement of Iran.
This is a variation of the same
cynical Obama administration strategy which manufactured a fake intelligence
community consensus blaming Benghazi on a protest over a Mohammed YouTube
video, instead of a coordinated transnational wave of Islamist attacks
coordinated well ahead of time to coincide with September 11.
The Obama administration may be
history, but the damage it did still revebrates through the region as the
Islamist forces it unleashed continue to tear apart nations and to threaten
American lives.
Obama
Aide Ben Rhodes: Death of Iran’s Soleimani ‘A Really Frightening Moment’
Pete Souza /
The White House via Getty
2 Jan 20203,244
2:07
Ben Rhodes, the former national security aide to President
Barack Obama who helped negotiate the Iran nuclear deal, expressed concern on
Thursday evening at news that the U.S. killed Iranian terror general Qassem
Soleimani.
Soleimani led the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force. In that capacity, he was
responsible for the deaths of hundreds of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, and directed
Iran’s foreign military adventures, including terrorism. He was killed at the airport in
Baghdad, Iraq, early Friday local time, after reportedly arriving in the country late
last year to repress anti-Iranian protests. The attack came days after an
Iranian-backed militia attacked the U.S. embassy.
The U.S. Department of
Defense later confirmed that Soleimani had been killed at President Trump’s
“direction.”
Rhodes took to Twitter to
warn that the death of Soleimani was “a frightening moment” that could lead to
war:
Rhodes also worried about
congressional authorization for Trump’s decision — though he had expressed no such concern when President Obama
led the U.S. into a controversial war against Mummer Ghadafi in Libya in 2011:
Trump may have just started a war with no
congressional debate. I really hope the worst case scenario doesn’t happen but
everything about this situation suggests serious escalation to come.
Congress has to assert itself and determine
exactly what our Iran policy is. Did we mean to do this? Do we have any plan
for what comes next? What is the legal basis for all this?
Rhodes then added that he was
specifically worried about President Trump’s “strategy” and competence to lead:
There are real world consequences to having
Trump as President. They are becoming increasingly clear and he is the one who
is going to have to navigate incredibly complicated and dangerous messes of his
own creation. This is not reality TV.
Iraq and Lebanon are just two of the places
where we have to be very concerned about the potential Iranian response which
could play out over time - not to mention Iran's nuclear program. Again, QS was
as bad a guy as there was, but what is the strategy here?
Under the
Iran deal, the Obama
administration
gave Iran access to $100-$150
billion in
frozen assets, as well as nearly $2
billion in
cash (delivered by cargo plane),
some of
which is thought to have funded
Soleimani’s
activities.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior
Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and
Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard College, and a J.D. from
Harvard Law School. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni
Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside
Story of a Revolution , which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter
at @joelpollak .
“So, unlike the Obama administration in
Benghazi, which, again, refused to deploy —
in fact, misled the American public about
what happened — here, you have Trump,
within hours, sending forces to Iraq, and
now, taking out — possibly
— the terror
commander
who organized [and] greenlit that
assault
on the American embassy,” Klein
said.
Aaron
Klein: Soleimani Was ‘Bin Laden of Shiite World,’ Killing Him Prevents Another
Benghazi
Office of the
Iranian Supreme Leader via AP, File
3 Jan 202010
4:50
Breitbart News Jerusalem Bureau
Chief Aaron Klein described the elimination of
Qassem Soleimani, who he labeled the “Osama bin Laden of the Shiite world,” as
President Donald Trump’s critical deterrence for Iran crossing the “red line”
with Tuesday’s organized
assault on the U.S. embassy in Iraq.
Klein said
Iran-backed militias could not have carried out the embassy attack without
Iran’s permission. He offered his remarks on Friday’s edition of
SiriusXM’s Breitbart News
Daily with host Alex Marlow.
“Soleimani was basically the Osama bin Laden of the Shiite
world,” remarked Klein. “Iran is the largest state-sponsor of terrorism in the
world, and Soleimani was the commander of that state-sponsor of terror. Today,
the [elimination] of General Qassem Soleimani really should be celebrated as …
a watershed moment in the war of terror, and [as a] really a great victory for
freedom.”
LISTEN :
Klein opined,
“Iran has been getting away for years now, and unfortunately even in the last
few months, with carrying out significant strikes, terror attacks, and actually
using their proxies at times to attack America and to attack our allies.
Because they believed they were getting away with it, I believe you saw the
escalation [of conflict] 48 hours ago at the U.S. embassy in Iraq.”
Soleimani
likely directed Tuesday’s attack on the U.S. embassy in Iraq, estimated Klein.
“Make no mistake about it, there is absolutely no way, I believe, that
Iran-backed militias could possibly have laid siege to the American embassy in
Iraq without a green light [and] without operational instructions from Iran.”
“I think what
you’re seeing today with this targeted elimination of Qassem Soleimani was a
direct response to the attack on our American embassy and a response to
numerous other attacks in which many Americans were killed, and many of our
allies were targeted by this terrorism grandmaster,” added Klein.
Klein continued,
“The elimination of Soleimani was maybe the biggest foreign policy decision
that Trump has made so far. Maybe number one is getting out of the JCPOA. This
is a watershed moment.”
Soleimani directed Iran’s foreign terrorist operations for 20
years, noted Klein, including proxies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in
Gaza.
“The Iranians have to be very nervous right now after this
killing because they understand that Trump did something that Obama never
would, and I think that the Iranians have been put on notice,” assessed Klein.
Klein stated,
“I can’t imagine, after attacking our American embassy in Iraq — and again,
that’s basically what [Iran] did — what would they do next if they got away
with that? The media’s spinning this like, ‘Oh, America eliminated Soleimani.
That’s a major red line.’ No, a major red line is attacking our embassy
in Iraq. That’s a major red line.”
“This was not
a protest,” said Klein of assorted news media’s description of the attack on
the U.S. embassy in Iraq. “This was an organized assault on our American
embassy in Iraq. Massive. What would Iran possibly do next if they already got
away with breaching the gate of the American embassy?”
Klein went on, “I think the only reason they didn’t get further
is because the embassy was fortified. They couldn’t, although unfortunately
American diplomats were holed up in a safe room, which reminds me also of the
original Benghazi attack.”
“So,
unlike the Obama administration in
Benghazi,
which, again, refused to deploy —
in
fact, misled the American public about
what
happened — here, you have Trump,
within
hours, sending forces to Iraq, and
now, taking
out — possibly — the terror
commander who organized [and]
greenlit that
assault on the American embassy,”
Klein said.
“So if we did
do something like eliminate this terror commander — this Osama bin Laden of the
Shiite world — after our American embassy was attacked, again, what greater red
line could you have had that Iran crossed?” asked Klein.
The elimination of Soleimani amounts to a message of deterrence
against further Iranian belligerence, estimated Klein.
Klein
concluded, “Then Iran would have understood they can get away with anything.
Now they know they can’t. Now they know that America, under Trump, is not the
America that they experienced for eight years under the Obama administration,
and I think they got that message today.”
Breitbart
News Daily broadcasts live on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to
9:00 a.m. Eastern.
Barack Obama’s plot for a third term for life
A Muslim dictatorship like his crony paymasters, the 9-11
invading Saudis who have financed him for decades.
“Obama has the totalitarian impulse.
After all, he went around saying he didn't have Constitutional authority to
legalize the illegals, and then he tried anyway. The courts stopped him.”
*
What was Obama’s motive? Simple, he knew if he did that
for Hillary, he’d own the next President of the United States, and could
blackmail her with the truth till the end of time. It literally would have
given him a 3rd and 4th term.
THE OBAMA – CLINTON RUSSIAN CONNECTION
*
WITH THESE
TRAITORS, JUST FOLLOW THE MONEY!
*
How President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton aided
Russia’s quest for global nuclear dominance.
///
OBAMA’S WAR ON THE JEWS
The Democrats are now
officially the party of Jew-hatred. This is largely due to the disastrous
presidency of Barack Hussein Obama. PAMELA GELLER
*
*
Abunimah’s piece -- and Obama’s numerous
anti-Semitic associations -- got little attention. Throughout his life Barack
Obama has been close friends with numerous virulent anti-Semites: Jeremiah
Wright, Bill Ayers, Khalid al-Mansour, Rashid Khalidi and others. PAMELA GELLER
THE OBOMBS AND HARVARD
OBAMA AND HIS SAUDIS
PAYMASTERS… Did he serve them well?
*
Michelle was the next to attend Harvard, in her case Harvard
Law School. “Told by counselors that her SAT scores and her grades weren’t good
enough for an Ivy League school,” writes Christopher Andersen in Barack and
Michelle, “Michelle applied to Princeton and Harvard anyway.”
GOOGLE WHAT THE OBOMB DID FOR HIS SAUDIS
PAYMASTERS
Barack Obama’s back door, however, was unique to him. Before
prosecutors send some of the dimmer Hollywood stars to the slammer for their
dimness, they might want to ask just how much influence a Saudi billionaire
peddled to get Obama into Harvard.
“Of course,
one of the main reasons the nation is now “divided, resentful and angry”
is because race-baiting, Islamist, class warrior Barack Hussein
Obama was president for eight long years." MATTHEW VADUM
OBAMA’S AGENDA:
BUILD A MUSLIM-STILE DICTATORSHIP
The Case for
Impeaching Barack Obama
Listen to the Article!
Yes, you read the title of this
missive correctly.
As a career military officer, we
never believed that you win on defense. During the constant, incessant, and
insidious attacks on President Trump, I believe there should be a full-fledged
attack to evidence the abject, utter hypocrisy of the progressive socialist
left. If I were on any news program and was asked about the “impeachment
inquiry” of President Trump, I would pivot and discuss the case for impeaching
Barack Obama…and why the progressive socialist left defended his indefensible
actions.
If in this current frenzy by the
left and their media accomplices about Ukraine, the issue is about national
security, I can counter that.
Early in 2009, Barack Obama
traveled to Cairo, Egypt to deliver an address to the Muslim world. I have no
issue with his wanting to have an outreach. But we should all agree that
Obama’s requesting members of the Muslim Brotherhood to be in attendance, front
and center, was ill advised. All one need to do is understand the history of
the Muslim Brotherhood, the grandfather of modern-day Islamic jihadism.
This is the terrorist
organization responsible for the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar
Sadat. Anyone can read the Muslim Brotherhood’s website and realize what their
goals and objectives are, and they are not consistent with those of the United
States. Yet, Barack Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood candidate for
President, Mohammed Morsi, as he undermined the office of Hosni Mubarak. Sure,
Mubarak was not the best, but he was not supportive of Islamic jihadism.
When Morsi won the election,
quite questionably, it was Barack Obama who congratulated him and offered US
support, to include military aid…to a Muslim Brotherhood backed president. The
people of Egypt were indignant, and in the end, revolted against Morsi and
overthrew him for a new President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. Barack Obama condemned
Egypt and its so-called coup, threatening to cut off any US aid…which he was
willing to supply to a Muslim Brotherhood backed government.
Second point, Barack Obama
claimed that there was a major crisis in Libya and ended up outsourcing our
military support and aid to Islamic jihadist organizations against President
Muammar al-Gaddafi. There was evidence that Gaddafi was willing to negotiate
his removal and departure from Libya, but instead, Obama supplied weapons,
intelligence, and air support to Islamic terrorists who did overthrow, and
execute, Gaddafi. Since when did the United States provide military aid to
Islamic terrorists?
In the aftermath, the Obama
administration attempted a weapons buy back program from these same jihadists.
And that led to the debacle we came to know as Benghazi. Amazingly enough a US
Ambassador, Chris Stevens, was brutally murdered and paraded in the streets,
along with Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty during an Islamic
terrorist attack. But where was our support to those brave men who fought off
the attacks? Why was it that Barack Obama lied about this very sad day in US
history, and was never held accountable and responsible? This was not about
some anti-Islam video, which was the Obama talking point. And sadly, those four
Americans who lost their lives, Barack Obama did not even send a US military
aircraft to retrieve their remains.
Third point in the case for
impeaching Barack Hussein Obama, the off-mike comment by Obama to Russian
President Dmitry Medvedev. Yes, remember when Obama whispered, “tell Vladmir
that after my reelection I will have more flexibility”. It was 2012 and no one
dared ask of President Obama, that is from the left, what was meant by flexibility?
Here was a sitting US President making overt guarantees to Russia. Funny thing,
when Obama was in office Russia was not this enemy, dark specter, matter of
fact, the Obama administration offered a “reset button” to Russia. Recall in
the final presidential debate between Obama and Mitt Romney how Obama chastised
and ridiculed Romney on his assertion that Russia was our number one
geopolitical threat? Obama said to Romney that the 80s was calling for their
foreign policy back, now the progressive socialist left runs around screaming
Russia, Russia, Russia ad nauseum.
When Russia was overrunning
Ukraine, and Ukraine asked the Obama administration for support, Obama sent
socks and MREs. President Trump has sent A-10s and increased military support
to include increased military to military training and cooperation in the
Baltic States and Poland. And somehow, we are being told by Nancy Pelosi that
we must impeach President Trump for threatening national security and our
foreign policy?
Lastly, Iran is the number one
state sponsor of Islamic terrorism. Why then did Barack Obama sent pallets of
laundered cash in a blacked out unmarked plane to Iran? And no, it had nothing
to do with past weapons deals, those deals, agreements, had been made with the
Iranian Republic when the Shah of Iran was the leader. When the Shah was
deposed by the Ayatollah Khomeini, that agreement was null and void. Several US
Presidents, Republican and Democrat, had not sent cash to Iran, until Obama.
That was, and is, a violation of US Code, Statute, in aiding and abetting the
enemy, which Iran used the funds to advance its terrorist support, especially
to its proxy army, Hezbollah.
As well, why was it that Obama
did not bring the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the Iranian nuclear agreement,
before the US Senate as a treaty for ratification? Instead he made it a
unilateral executive decision, which is in violation of our US Constitution.
There was nothing said about impeaching Obama, but I am saying it now.
I am tired of Republicans playing
right into the traps, games, of the progressive socialist left, instead of
putting them on defense. I would love to have someone, anyone, ask of Nancy
Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Jerrold Nadler, and Rashida Tlaib, who wants to use US
Marshals to remove Trump administration officials from office, to answer these
points I have presented.
The progressive socialist left is
mad that they lost the 2016 presidential election. They realize that, as Rep.
Al Green said, they will probably not be able to defeat President Trump at the
ballot box, unless they use tricks like ballot harvesting. So, what it their
only recourse, the Banana Republic, kangaroo court tactics of using impeachment
as a political weapon...this is nothing more than an unsophisticated coup.
The case for impeaching Barack
Obama was easy, yet the left and their propagandized media dismissed it. Let’s
stop allowing the progressive socialist left to dominate the narrative, it is
time to put them on defense.
(Allen West is a retired
Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army. Mr. West is a Senior Fellow at
the Media Research Center, supporting its mission to expose and neutralize
liberal media bias. Mr. West also writes daily commentary on his personal
website theoldschoolpatriot.com )
Pollak:
Everything Joe Biden Said About Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy Actually
Describes Barack Obama’s
Johannes Eisele / AFP Getty
12 Jul 20193
3:48
Everything
former vice president Joe Biden said about President Donald Trump’s foreign
policy speech on Thursday actually applies to the policy that Biden carried out
together with former President Barack Obama — and not Trump.
In his speech, at City University of New York, Biden called
Trump an “extreme” threat to the country’s national security. No one has yet
taken Biden to task for describing the sitting commander-in-chief in such
alarmist terms.
But that wasn’t even the most bizarre aspect of Biden’s speech.
He said the main problem in Trump’s foreign policy was … Charlottesville,
Virginia. Biden went on to recite a version of the debunked “very fine people”
hoax, claiming that Trump had drawn a “moral equivalence between those who
promoted hate and those who opposed it.” That, he said, was a threat to
America’s mission of standing for democratic values in the world.
But in fact, Trump
specifically condemned the neo-Nazis
in Charlottesville on multiple occasions. The entire premise of Biden’s speech
was a lie.
Biden went on to claim that Trump’s foreign policy rejects
democratic values and favors the rise of authoritarianism worldwide. He cited
Trump’s warmth to Russian president Vladimir Putin and North Korean dictator
Kim Jong-un. And he claimed that Trump has undermined America’s alliances with
democracies in favor of flattery from dictators.
Apparently Biden forgot that Obama literally bowed to the Saudi
king; that he abandoned the pro-democracy protests during the Green Revolution
in Iran; that he pushed for a “reset” with Russia and abandoned our Czech and
Polish allies on missile defense; that he promised Putin he would be even more
“flexible” after he won re-election; that he tried to normalize relations with
the Cuban dictatorship without securing any democratic reforms there; that he
gave the store away to the communist dictatorship in China; and that he
abandoned Israel, a betrayal in which Biden himself played a direct and
shameful role, condemning Israel for building apartments in a Jewish
neighborhood of Jerusalem.
Trump praises dictators as a negotiating tactic; Obama praised
them because he, too, thought America was a problem.
One of the few times the Obama administration embraced
democratic change was during the Arab Spring, when “democracy” meant the rise
of the Muslim Brotherhood — which had no interest in freedom, only in power.
In 2008, the Obama campaign cast Biden as a foreign policy guru,
though he had been wrong on almost every foreign policy issue in his career. On
Thursday, he mostly ignored his own record.
Astonishingly, Biden claimed credit
for Trump’s success in crushing the so-called “Islamic State,” saying he worked
with Obama “to craft the military and diplomatic campaign that ultimately
defeated ISIS.” In fact, Biden was complicit in the rise of ISIS. He was
Obama’s point man on Iraq when the U.S. suddenly pulled out of the country,
leaving a vacuum that ISIS filled. He did not object when Obama called the
terror group “junior varsity.”
Biden offered nothing new in terms
of solutions to current foreign policy challenges. He claimed that the Iran
nuclear deal had been a success — on the very day Iran was reported to have been cheating all along. He said the U.S. should
re-enter the deal once Iran did, offering no idea how to ensure that it did so.
On North Korea, Biden promised he would “empower our negotiators,” whatever
that means.
He said that he would get “tough”
with China, which Trump is already doing (and which Biden previously suggested he
would not do).
And on immigration, he ridiculed the very idea
of borders — literally: “I respect no borders.”
And this is the best Democrats have on
foreign policy.
Joel B.
Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social
Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard. He is a
winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the
co-author of How Trump
Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution , which is available from
Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak .
OBAMA POSED WITH FARRAKHAN, ACCUSES REPUBLICANS OF "RACIAL NATIONALISM"
September 9, 2018
See if you can spot the Republican racial nationalism in these
pictures.
In his Trump-bashing speech, Barack Hussein Obama accused
Republicans of an "appeal to racial nationalism that’s barely
veiled". I don't see a whole lot of veils up there.
ANTI-SEMITE LOUIS
FARRAKHAN SPOTTED IN THE FRONT ROW AT ARETHA FRANKLIN’S FUNERAL
Amber Athey | Media and Breaking
News Editor
Louis Farrakhan, the anti-Semitic
leader of the Nation of Islam, managed to snag a front-row seat at Aretha
Franklin’s funeral on Friday.
A live broadcast of the Queen of
Soul’s funeral shows Farrakhan seated in the same row with Rev. Al Sharpton,
Rev. Jesse Jackson and President Bill Clinton.
·
·
“Some of you think that I’m just
somebody who’s got something out for the Jewish people. You’re stupid. Do you
think I would waste my time if I did not think it was important for you to know
Satan? My job is to pull the cover off of Satan so that he will never deceive
you and the people of the world again,” Farrakhan said in 2011.
BARACK Hussein OBAMA: THE CLOSET MUSLIM PSYCHOPATH WHO HATED AMERICA!
"But the Obamas are
the center of the most delusional cult of personality that the media has yet
spawned. And so we get bizarre pieces like these."
The mullahs rolled in cash as a result of rolling
Obama and his gullible team over the deal, knowing that Obama was desperate for
some sort of legacy. MONICA SHOWALTER
MUSLIM DICTATORS, INCLUDING THE 9-11 INVADING SAUDIS,
FUNDED THE PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARIES OF BUSH, CLINTON and OBAMA!
ISLAMIST BARACK OBAMA
“Of
course, one of the main reasons the nation is now “divided, resentful and angry” is because
race-baiting, Islamist, class warrior Barack Hussein Obama was
president for eight long years." MATTHEW VADUM
"But the Obamas are the center of the most delusional
cult of personality that the media has yet spawned. And so we get bizarre
pieces like these." MONICA SHOWALTER
"Along with Obama, Pelosi and
Schumer are responsible for incalculable damage done to this country over the
eight years of that administration." PATRICIA McCARTHY
THE OBOMBS AND HARVARD
OBAMA AND HIS SAUDIS
PAYMASTERS… Did he serve them well?
*
Michelle was the next to attend Harvard, in her case Harvard Law
School. “Told by counselors that her SAT scores and her grades weren’t good
enough for an Ivy League school,” writes Christopher Andersen in Barack and
Michelle, “Michelle applied to Princeton and Harvard anyway.”
GOOGLE WHAT THE OBOMB DID FOR HIS SAUDIS
PAYMASTERS
Barack Obama’s back door, however, was unique to him. Before
prosecutors send some of the dimmer Hollywood stars to the slammer for their
dimness, they might want to ask just how much influence a Saudi billionaire
peddled to get Obama into Harvard.
Our efforts in showing what an insult it was to the American
people and to the victims of 9/11, and how many Muslims worldwide would
inevitably view it as a triumphal mosque built on the site of a jihad attack,
defeated it.
The Ground Zero Mosque
Project Is Back
The
news was buried under two dense paragraphs and five large photos in an article in New York YIMBY
about a different project: "Construction has also yet to begin on 51 Park
Place, which is slated to become a 71-foot-tall, 16,000-square-foot Islamic cultural
center." The infamous Ground Zero Mosque project, a long-buried
effort to build a triumphal mosque at the site of the worst jihad terror attack
in American history, is back.
Construction
has yet to begin, but it will: the shady developer behind the Ground Zero
Mosque scheme, Sharif El-Gamal, has been working to build this sinister
structure for years.
We
defeated the Ground Zero Mosque project once before. The 16-story
mosque that El-Gamal initially planned to build there has not been
built. Our efforts in showing what an insult it was to the
American people and to the victims of 9/11, and how many Muslims worldwide
would inevitably view it as a triumphal mosque built on the site of a jihad
attack, defeated it. Tens of thousands of people came out for
our rallies in lower Manhattan against this celebration of this 9/11 attacks,
and El-Gamal was beaten in the court of public opinion.
It
was a long battle. President Obama announced his support for the
mosque at an Iftar dinner, no less. Then-mayor of New York City and current
presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg supported the mosque as well,
claiming hysterically that "if we don't build it, the terrorists will
win!" The media actively campaigned for it — the elites in
their increasingly fragile ivory towers relentlessly stumped for the Cordoba
mosque (euphemistically called an Islamic center with a prayer space) for
years.
And
yet despite all this opposition and much more, the people stood up and fought
the Ground Zero Mosque and won . An army of Davids.
But
that wasn't the end of the story. Crains New York reported on
El-Gamal's new project in 2015 in a story that demonstrated how the developer
was hoping to sneak his triumphal mosque into existence: "Mr. El-Gamal's
Soho Properties has proposed a 667-foot condominium tower at lower Manhattan's
45 Park Place. The glass skyscraper, which has yet to break ground,
will include at least 15 full-floor units of 3,200 to 3,700 square feet, and
average prices higher than $3,000 a square foot, according to plans released to
Bloomberg by the developer."
That
sounded normal enough. But then the article added: "Adjacent
to the tower, Soho Properties will build a public plaza connected to a
three-story Islamic museum and prayer space." An Islamic
prayer space is a mosque. The article also said: "An Islamic
museum 'is just as much of an insult,' Pamela Geller, a blogger and one of the
center's most vocal opponents, wrote in an email. 'It will be like
having a museum touting the glories of the Japanese Empire at Pearl
Harbor.'"
I
think an Islamic museum at Ground Zero dedicated to the half-billion victims of
jihadi wars, land appropriations, sharia, cultural annihilations, enslavements,
and sharia enforcement is an excellent idea, but is that what Sharif El-Gamal
had in mind? Of course not. And how did El-Gamal plan to
finance this? The answer was predictable. The New York Post reported in May
2016 that "the developer of the failed Ground Zero Mosque has nailed down
'Sharia-compliant financing' for a new, luxury condominium tower and Islamic
cultural museum on the same site, he and his banking partners said."
Then
in May 2017, the New York Times ran a story
entitled "Condo Tower to Rise Where Muslim Community Center Was
Proposed." The Times said that "45 Park Place, a 43-story
condominium that will soon rise three blocks from the World Trade Center,"
was "something of a consolation prize for the developer," as it
"replaces the developer's 2010 plan to build a 15-story Islamic mosque and
cultural center on this site, an idea that erupted into a national controversy
and cable news network bonanza."
In
the last couple of years, there has been virtually no news about this
"Islamic museum." But the New York YIMBY story shows that
the project has been advancing under cover of darkness. A
71-foot-tall structure is three stories high, as in the revised plans announced
in 2015.
El-Gamal
has many friends and allies among New York City's political and media
elites. It is likely that de Blasio city officials and the New York
Times and other city papers all met with El-Gamal and agreed to keep the
reporting on this project to an absolute minimum, so that it could get built
without incurring the righteous anger of the public again. The
first time around, they courted publicity and tried to make El-Gamal a hero. We
demolished that and destroyed their plans. So now they've clearly
decided to go ahead surreptitiously.
It
is disgusting that El-Gamal continues to taunt Americans and poke at America's
most egregious recent memory. El-Gamal was there when we had tens of
thousands in the streets opposing his Ground Zero mosque. He knows
how angry and upset people get at these Islamic structures on the site of jihad
war. The 9/11 Muslim terrorists extolled Allah no fewer than 90
times in their last letters. Will those letters be on display at
this Islamic cultural center/museum?
There
is an important lesson to be learned here — and one we would be wise to
adopt. They never stop. No matter how absolutely they
lose, how many setbacks they suffer, they keep on pursuing their supremacist
goals.
The
Ground Zero Mosque project was and is a middle finger to the American
people. There has never been a mosque of reconciliation and healing
built on the site of a jihadi attack. Ever. It is, on the
other hand, an Islamic pattern to build triumphal mosques on the cherished
sites of conquered lands. History is riddled with triumphal mosques
built on the sites of jihad attacks or appropriated from other religions:
the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa
Mosque on the site of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul,
the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, and
innumerable mosques built on the sites of Hindu temples that were
demolished by Muslims all attest to that.
And
now it looks as if Sharif El-Gamal is going to be able to build his own
triumphal mosque at Ground Zero after all.
The Left Lines Up With the
Terrorists
Britain's
voters rejected
soundly the Labor Party, whose former leader Jeremy
Corbyn has called Hamas and Hezb'allah terrorists " his friends "
and for whom Hamas expressed reciprocal support . Americans
must similarly ostracize and marginalize politicians, organizations, and
religious institutions that give tacit support to Hamas, Islamic Jihad,
Hezb'allah, and other terrorist organizations.
There
is a huge legal
difference (no criminal liability versus up to 15 years
in prison), but little moral difference, between giving material support to
terrorists and seeking to damage Israel's economy through boycott, divestment,
and sanctions (BDS). Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ,
who endorsed Jeremy Corbyn, supports
BDS ,
as do Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and 14 other House Democrats. So
does Jewish
Voice for Peace, which I call "Jews for
Jihad."
Rewarding
Terrorism
It
is very easy to reward terrorism without providing material or even verbal
support for terroristic violence. Ongoing support for a two-state
solution assures the terrorists that there are no long-term consequences, such
as permanent loss of their aspirations for independence or even autonomy,
regardless of how many treaties they
break, how many pizza
parlors and Seders they
bomb, how many little
girls whose heads they bash in with rifle butts, how
many Jewish
families they cut up with knives, how many rockets they
launch at Israel, and how many wildfires they
start with incendiary balloons while they talk openly about destroying
Israel. (Noting how wildfires release carbon dioxide while
destroying carbon sinks, maybe Greta Thunberg should
tell Hamas, "How dare you?") They have also, like the
Nazis, spoken
openly about how they want to exterminate all the
Jews and rule the world.
Jews
might be first on their list, but Sultan ErdoÄŸan has made it clear that Christians and
peaceful Muslims are next . "[T]he
borders of Turkey span 'from Vienna to the shores of the Adriatic
Sea.'" (How did that work out for the Turks in 1683 ?) The
Palestinian children's show Tomorrow's
Pioneers , meanwhile, talks about becoming " masters of
the world" and "ruling of the world by an Islamic leadership ." Didn't
we hear rhetoric ( in
German ) along those lines back in the 1930s?
Democratic
frontrunner Elizabeth
Warren has nonetheless expressed her willingness to
pressure Israel to accept a two-state solution, and J
Street also supports a two-state
solution. While Bernie
Sanders has condemned BDS and anti-Semitism, he also
wants to re-legitimize the United Nations Human Rights Council despite
its infestation by
totalitarian nations like China, Egypt, and Cuba. Sanders also calls
Israeli settlements illegal. The Democrat-controlled House voted to reward
terrorism by continuing to support a two-state solution.
What
Would Air Marshal Sir Arthur Harris Do?
The
Israeli town of Sderot is so close to the terrorists that its residents have
only fifteen
seconds to reach a bomb shelter before terrorist
rockets arrive. British civilians in London usually had, in
contrast, adequate time to take shelter from Nazi bombs; cruise
missiles ; and, to a lesser degree, supersonic but
radar-detectable ballistic missiles. The Royal Air Force's response
was to turn Dresden and Hamburg into crematoria, and Winston Churchill
apparently intended to drop a nuclear
bomb on
Berlin. The Nazis fired a total of 3,172 V2
rockets at all Allied targets during the war; the
Palestinians have fired more than 20,000 rockets
at Israel.
I
can see no reason other than pressure from the United Nations, European Union,
and pre-Trump United States as to why Israel has not similarly applied
Admiral John
Fisher's advice to every single rocket launcher,
terrorist, and other military target in Gaza: "The essence of war is
violence. Moderation in war is imbecility." The
political and religious Left, on the other hand, continue to reassure the
terrorists that they will suffer no meaningful consequences for exactly the same
behavior that caused the United Kingdom to go
dracarys on every German city within reach of the RAF.
President
Trump Slashes Material Support for Terrorists
Thirty-four Democratic
senators including Elizabeth Warren, and also Bernie
Sanders (I-Vt.), signed a letter opposing President Trump's decision to cut
$200 million in aid to the Palestinians and another $300 million to UNRWA ,
which has been complicit in
promoting violent hatred of Israel. The Palestinians' "pay to
slay" program provides
financial assistance to terrorists and their families. Money given
to the Palestinians, and probably UNRWA, is therefore fungible with material support
for terrorists . "Fungible" means that the
Palestinian government can use the aid money to feed its people while diverting
its own resources to buy weapons, pay terrorists, and indoctrinate Palestinian
children to hate Jews and others, much as the Hitlerjugend indoctrinated
German children, "products of the worst educational crime in the history
of the world." (Yes, Dr. Seuss wrote
"Your Job in Germany.") The Palestinian Hitlerjugend
includes Tomorrow's
Pioneers , "a cheaply-produced children's
television program in which young children are brought onto a
pastel-colored set and taught the wonders of killing the inhabitants of
Israel." The show even says openly ,
"We will annihilate the Jews." I don't speak Arabic, but I
did recognize " Yahud "
in that sentence.
Norway has
cut funding for violent indoctrination, but most Senate Democrats seem
comfortable with giving the Palestinians U.S. taxpayer money regardless of its
fungibility with hatred and violence.
Leftists
Accuse Trump of Anti-Semitism for Fighting Anti-Semitism
The Simon
Wiesenthal Center "Commends President Trump's
Executive Order on Anti-Semitism," which will penalize on-campus
anti-Semitism. Progressive
Jews ,
however, denounce Trump's order as defining Jews as a separate nationality ( it doesn't ),
while one critic complained that Trump's action is "an obvious attempt to
kill the BDS 'Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions' movement on college
campuses," as if that were somehow a Bad Thing. The Left has
gone even farther by arguing that
Trump's executive order somehow violates the First Amendment.
The
First Amendment says only that BDS-supporters cannot be prosecuted criminally
for, as an example, telling Jews to " go back to
the ovens ." It
does not entitle these people, or organizations like Students for Justice in Palestine
or many Muslim Student
Associations , to financial
support via publicly funded universities, or entry
visas for the international students involved. If terrorist
sympathizers want to advocate BDS and praise the Holocaust, they are free to do
it without either taxpayer-funded university support or fear of criminal
prosecution, just as racist white nationalists can call black people the N-word
without fear of prosecution — and without taxpayer support.
Michigan
Democrats are meanwhile about to elect a governor who supports BDS and a lieutenant
governor who openly supports
Hamas. "Hamas is a legitimately elected party that only rose to
power b/c of Israeli aggression & Western
complicity/enablement." The Palestinians therefore proved
themselves as unfit to govern themselves as the Germans who legitimately
elected the Nazis in
1932. The fact that Michigan voters, including those who elected
Rashida Tlaib, are supporting this pair is another strong argument for Keeping
America Great in 2020.
Civis Americanus is the pen
name of an American Thinker contributor who remembers the lessons of history
and wants to ensure that our country never needs to learn those lessons again
the hard way.
President Trump Again Does
the Right Thing for the Jewish People
I
was honored to be present at the White House on the day President Trump signed
an Executive Order protecting Jewish students from the harassment, bullying,
and intimidation on American campuses coming primarily from Islamic student
associations and leftwing professors and groups.
This
harassment of Jewish students has been going on since the beginning of the
Obama administration, and for all their supposed good intentions, the Obama
presidency and the House under Nancy Pelosi never signed or passed an order or
legislation to protect Jewish students on campus who are being uniquely
targeted. Obama’s
and Pelosi’s failure to stop this had resulted in an escalation and growing
ferocity each succeeding academic year. I and some other Jewish leaders
have spoken out and written about this calamity for years.
President
Trump’s Executive Order does not attack free speech.
Those
who as a profession dislike Israel, and those who dislike Jews and use
criticism of Israel to demonize Jews and Zionism remain free to spew forth
their bias. What is now prohibited is the following: any speech that has as its
goal the incendiary purpose of hostile and discriminatory actions against
Jewish students. It is obvious that many of the Islamic and
leftwing speakers on campus are fiercely prodding the audience to ostracize
Jewish students from campus activities and clubs and to bully and physically
and verbally intimidate Jewish students and invade their privacy by harassing
them even in dormitories. The Islamic and leftwing
groups scream and pound on locked doors where Jewish students congregate.
While
the ACLU and other groups will go to court against the implementation of the
Executive Order, there is no question that if a similar Executive Order were
issued to protect black students or LGBTQIA students this would be heralded as
a gesture against corrosive hate speech and a plea for tolerance and
inclusivity.
There
are some Never-Trumpers in the Jewish community who have condemned this
Executive Order as anti-Semitic. These are the same people who condemned
President Trump when moving our Embassy to Jerusalem as somehow anti-Israel. In
their hatred for our President, they twist pro-Israel and pro-Jewish actions by
Mr. Trump as anti-Jewish; yet they saw in former President Obama’s capitulation
and giveaways to Iran something “pro-Israel”. Either their hate blinds
them to common sense or their partisanship eases them into making lies for the
sake of their political goals. No one should listen to them.
Groups
such as J Street have come out against the Executive Order. It is obvious that
J Street wishes the continuance on campus of unfettered anti-Israel
pronouncements, calling Israel the worst names possible. Though criticism
of Israel will certainly be allowed to continue, the Executive Order withholds
federal funds when speakers advocate for the elimination of Israel or speak of
it as an illegitimate state.
No
one’s speech is outlawed; but federal funding will not be provided if speech is
used to incite against and ostracize Jewish students or defame the very
existence of the State of Israel. Federal funding should have long ago
been halted to colleges whose deans and boards, in un-American fashion,
continue to promote anti-Jewish campus Islamic groups and continue to hire
leftwing professors known precisely for their work toward eliminating the
Jewish State.
The
Executive Order expands the definitions in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to
include discrimination based not only on race and color but also on ethnicity
and nationality. By expanding these contours, aggressive Muslim and
leftwing students will no longer be able to weasel out of their violence and
guilt by claiming they are not against the Jewish religion. If they
attack Jews for being Jews, they are attacking them as a people and members of
a nationality. This, according to the President’s Order, is no longer
tolerated on campuses wishing to receive federal funds.
Some
leftwing Jewish detractors of the President hysterically condemned the
President for expanding the definition of Jewishness beyond religion to include
nationality. They are ignorant. Since it began, beyond being a religion,
Jews were part of a people. They were called “The Jewish People.” The
Bible, the Torah itself, refers to them as Am Yisrael, which means “the nation
of Israel.” These same liberal Jews were against the recent legislation
passed by the Knesset in Israel which labeled Israel a Jewish state and nation.
Our
gratitude goes out to President Trump, who has been, without doubt, the
greatest friend Israel and the Jewish people have ever had among our presidents
and among world leaders. Those whose partisanship and hatred have blinded
them should no longer be viewed as worthwhile or serious participants in our
national conversation. Their toxicity should be contained to
themselves. Let the nation be spared.
Rabbi Aryeh Spero is spokesman for the
Conference of Jewish Affairs, president of Caucus For America, author of Push
Back , and a frequent guest on Fox News.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA AND HIS MUSLIM
DICTATORS - WHO PAYS FOR THE PHONY OBAMA PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY THAT
WILL NEVER HAVE HIS PAPERS?
"Under the Iran
deal, the Obama administration gave Iran access to $100-$150 billion in frozen
assets, as well as nearly $2 billion in cash (delivered by cargo plane), some
of which is thought to have funded Soleimani’s activities."
Saudi Slavery
An Islamically-sanctioned barbarity continues.
November 8, 2019
Hugh Fitzgerald
As is well known, slavery was
formally abolished in Saudi Arabia as late as 1962, and then only after
terrific pressure had been applied to the Saudis by Western governments. And
today, when we speak of slavery in the Muslim world, we think of Mauritania
(with 600,000 slaves), as the report in the past hour discussed, Niger (600,000 slaves), Mali (200,000 slaves),
and Libya (where slave markets have opened in nine sites during the last two
years). Most of us assume that in Saudi Arabia, slavery is no longer tolerated.
But most of us are wrong.
Slavery may have been formally
abolished, but the cruel and savage treatment of foreign domestic workers,
their inability to free themselves from arduous work conditions because their
employers keep their passports and other documents, amount to slavery in all
but name.
A report on one group of
domestic slaves — Vietnamese women — by reporter Yen Duong, who interviewed
former workers who had made it back to Vietnam, was published last year in Al
Jazeera here :
Overworked, abused, hungry:
Vietnamese domestic workers in Saudi Arabia.
Women say they are forced to
work at least 18 hours a day, denied food, assaulted and refused the right to
return home.
Pham Thi Dao, 46, says she
worked more than 18 hours a day and was given the same one meal to live on – a
slice of lamb and plain rice.
Dao, 46, was a domestic worker
in Saudi Arabia for more than seven months until she returned to Vietnam in
April.
“I worked from 5am until 1am
in the morning, and was allowed to eat once at 1pm,” Dao told Al Jazeera of her
experience in the port city of Yanbu. “It was the same every day – a slice of
lamb and a plate of plain rice. After nearly two months, I was like a mad
person.”
According to statistics from
Vietnam’s labor ministry, there are currently 20,000 Vietnamese workers in the
kingdom, with nearly 7,000 working as domestic staff for Saudi families…
The same harsh conditions
which Vietnamese have endured have also been reported by the Filipino,
Indonesian, and Sri Lankan workers, in Saudi Arabia. And they have also been
endured by domestic workers in the the Emirates and Kuwait. In addition
to the harsh working conditions, there is the persistent threat of sexual
assault by their Arab masters. Some domestic workers have been raped and
murdered by their Arab employers. Yet it has been almost impossible to bring
employers to justice for such crimes.
Some who escaped have
recounted slave-like working and living conditions.
“I understand that as
[domestic] workers we need to get used to difficult working conditions,” said
Dao, who is vocal on social media about her experience. “We didn’t ask for
much, just no starvation, no beatings, and three meals per day. If we had that,
we would not have begged for rescue.”…
“As soon as I arrived at the
airport in Riyadh, they (employees from a Saudi company providing domestic
workers) pushed me into a room with more than a hundred of others,” she said.
“When my employer picked me up later, he took my passport and employment
contract. Most women I’ve talked to here experience the same thing.”
By seizing the workers’
passports, the Saudi employers have complete control over them. They cannot
leave the country, nor move about inside Saudi Arabia, nor go to work for
another employer. And if they don’t have their employment contract, which has
been seized by their employer, they have no way of knowing if the onerous
conditions they endure violate the contract’s provisions. They are captives of
their employer in every sense.
Like Dao, she said she was
given one meal a day and worked 18-hour shifts.
Another domestic worker, who
requested anonymity, showed Al Jazeera her contract stipulating a nine-hour
working day – a standard given the contracts are composed by Vietnam’s labour
ministry.
Dao shows notes from the
Arabic lesson she took before her trip. Vietnamese domestic workers are
entitled to classes on language, skills and culture but the sessions are poorly
executed, say the workers.
When Linh asked to be moved to
another family – a workers’ right according to their contracts – staff at the
Vietnamese broker company shouted at her and tried to intimidate her.
She went on a hunger strike
for three days until her employer agreed to take her back to the Saudi company…
Leaving an employment contract
carries a hefty fine, plus the price of a ticket back to Vietnam, if the worker
is unable to prove abuse at the hands of their employers.
The cost of quitting is
usually between $2,500 and $3,500.
If workers get, at best, $388
per month, that means that if they manage to persuade their employer to give
them back their passports and to let them leave, they will still have to come
up with between seven and nine months of salary that must be paid back. And
that assumes that they will be paid the highest amount ($388/month) and will
have all other expenses, during that period of seven-to-nine months, paid by
their employer.
Tuyet told her partner in
Vietnam by phone that she is being abused by the family she works for in
Riyadh.
Bui Van Sang’s partner, Tuyet,
works in Riyadh.
He said she is being beaten
and starved.
The Vietnamese broker company
asked him for $2,155 for her return, but refused to put anything in writing, he
claimed.
Her phone has been taken away
and Sang is only able to contact her every two to three weeks, “when her
employer feels like [allowing her]”.
These domestic workers are
totally at the mercy of their Arab employers. They cannot even contact anyone
in the outside world unless the employer “feels like [allowing her].” They are,
essentially, prisoners whose brutal living and working conditions are set by
the employer, who answers to no one. That constitutes slavery, whether or not
it is called by that name.
By the time he had raised the
$2,155, the Vietnamese broker company demanded double the payment, he said.
He travelled 1,500km from his
southern Vietnamese home province of Tay Ninh to the capital, Hanoi, to beg the
broker, but was turned away….
The Vietnamese brokers are
akin to slave traders. They round up the “slaves” (domestic workers), hold out
the promise of decent work and pay which, once those they traffic in arrive in
Saudi Arabia, is simply ignored. The slaves have been delivered, the brokers
paid by the Saudi employers, and the living conditions, of 18-hour days,
with one meal a day, are now the norm. For beatings and sexual assaults, there
is no recourse for these Vietnamese domestics. Meanwhile, Saudi employers hold
onto those passports without which these workers cannot leave the country.
There are no independent
organisations in either Saudi Arabia or Vietnam which ensure the safety of
domestic workers.
In the past few years, reports
of abuse have prompted Saudi authorities to suggest amendments to existing
labor regulations, but rights groups say they fall short.
Whatever regulations are
talked about, Saudi employers still do pretty much what they want in setting
the conditions of work for domestic helpers.
Workers and their relatives
have to rely entirely on the Vietnamese broker companies for support.
Linh, the domestic helper in
Riyadh, said when she contacted the Vietnamese company that brought her there,
they told her the employment contract is only valid in Vietnam, not in Saudi
Arabia.
In other words, the Vietnamese
brokers, having been paid by the Saudi employers, have washed their hands of
the Vietnamese workers sent to Saudi Arabia. The employment contracts on which
these domestic workers were relying are, they now admit, worthless in Saudi
Arabia. These women have no guarantee of any rights; whatever their Saudi
employer wishes to impose is what they must accept. Hence the 18-hour days,
seven days a week, and the single meal each day. How is this not akin to
slavery?
“They [the Vietnamese
companies] are supposed to protect our rights, but all they do is yell at us,”
Linh said by phone. “Now I just want to leave the country. If I go to the
police, at least they’d bring me to the detention centre, and I’d be deported
and allowed to leave.”
She recently livestreamed a
video detailing the treatment that she and many fellow Vietnamese domestic
helpers face while working in Saudi Arabia.
The video has been viewed
113,000 times.
“Many women I know here just
want the same thing – they just want to leave,” she said. “But they are afraid,
threatened, and don’t even dare to speak out.”
Their fear is palpable. If
they complain of their working conditions, will they be beaten by their
employers? Will they be given even more unpleasant or difficult tasks? Will the
18-hour day become a 20-hour day, as one Vietnamese man reported his wife had
had to endure, that is with only four hours of sleep allowed? Will even the one
slice of meat they are now given be reduced still further, or will they perhaps
not be given meat at all? Will they no longer be allowed to call home even
twice a month? Not all Saudi employers are simon-legrees, but a great many
appear to be. The point is that domestic workers ought to have rights enshrined
in the Saudi law, but they do not. And the conditions which they endure are
scarcely distinguishable from slavery.
The Saudis are not alone in
such mistreatment of their domestic workers. The Kuwaitis and the Emiratis have
been difficult masters, too, but the conditions of domestic workers appear to
be especially harsh in Saudi Arabia. The mentality that lies behind this
mistreatment rests on two things. First, there is the deep belief that slavery
is legitimate, given that Muhammad himself owned slaves, and does not become
illegitimate in Islamic societies just because Western pressure has led to its
formal prohibition. The slave-owner mentality remains. Second, these domestic
workers — Vietnamese, Filipino, Thai, Indonesian, Sri Lankan — are almost all
non-Muslims, and the treatment they receive is commensurate with their
description in the Qur’an, as being “the most vile of creatures.” It
would be interesting to compare the working conditions of the non-Muslim
domestic workers in Saudi Arabia with those who, from Indonesia, are themselves
Muslim. But that’s a subject for another occasion.
Tulsi
Gabbard: U.S. Government ‘Is Hiding the Truth’ on 9/11 Terror Attacks
1 Nov 2019698
4:22
Thursday on Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Rep.
Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), a candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential
nomination, reacted to the difficulties Chris Ganci and Brett Eagleson,
two relatives of victims of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks were having
in their quest to obtain more information about Saudi Arabia’s involvement in
9/11.
Gabbard accused the federal government of undermining efforts of
achieving more transparency, which she said was being done at the behest of
Saudi Arabia.
Partial transcript as follows:
CARLSON: This is one of those issues I don’t think is partisan.
It doesn’t need to be. It shouldn’t be partisan in any sense.
GABBARD: Absolutely not.
CARLSON: It’s an American issue. Why would the U.S. government ever
side with the Saudi Kingdom of all countries against our citizens?
GABBARD: This is the real question that’s at stake. This story
that we’re hearing from the families of those who were killed on 9/11 pushes
this issue to the forefront where, for so long, leaders in our government have
said, well, Saudi Arabia is our great ally. They’re a partner in
counterterrorism, turning a blind eye or completely walking away from the
reality that Saudi Arabia time and again, has proven to be the opposite.
CARLSON: Yes.
GABBARD: They’re undermining our National Security interests.
They are — as you said, they are the number one exporter of this Wahhabi
extremist ideology.
CARLSON: Yes.
GABBARD: They’re a fertile recruiting ground for terrorists,
like al Qaeda and ISIS around the world. They’re directly providing arms and
assistance to al Qaeda, in places like Yemen, and in Syria.
And as we are seeing here, it is our government, our own
government that is hiding the truth from Chris and Brett and the many other
families of those who were killed on 9/11. For what? Where do the loyalties
really lie?
CARLSON: So I was thinking in the commercial break that of the
number of people I know personally, not abstractly, but have had lunch with in
this city who are taking currently money from the Saudi Kingdom or their allies
in the Emirates, the Gulf States, and I wonder if that maybe play some role,
like a lot of people on their payroll here.
GABBARD: Yes. We talk about the foreign policy establishment in
Washington.
CARLSON: Yes.
GABBARD: We talk about the political elite, the
military-industrial complex. We hear things from some of those people, well,
you know, hey, we sell a lot of weapons to Saudi Arabia. So you know, if we
burn bridges with them, then who are we going to sell our weapons to? Where are
we going to get that money from?
All of these excuses that have nothing to do with the interests
of the American people, with our national security interests. And that’s — I’m
proud and honored to be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with these 9/11
families in demanding this truth because, yes, it is about truth and justice
and closure for all of them now as we approach 20 years since that attack on
9/11. It’s also about our National Security.
CARLSON: Yes.
GABBARD: Safety and security of the American people.
CARLSON: I’ll never forget right after 9/11, living here in the
City of Washington, our airports were closed. All airports were closed in this
country.
GABBARD: Yes.
CARLSON: And learning that chartered flights of Saudi citizens
had been allowed with U.S. government approval to take off and run back to
Saudi Arabia without being questioned by authorities here and thinking you
know, if I tried to do that, I’d be in prison. Why are we giving preference to
Saudi citizens over our own citizens?
GABBARD: Exactly. It makes no sense if you think about what
would happen if we actually had leaders who were putting the interests of our
country above all else. You follow the money trail. It goes back to the
military-industrial complex.
You look at how many of the think tanks here in Washington who
send so-called experts to go and testify before Congress who are funded by
Saudi Arabia to spout their talking points.
You saw how the legislation that we passed in Congress. I was proud
to vote for legislation that allowed families like Chris and Brett’s to sue
Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia trotted out all of their lobbyists to say why that
would be so dangerous, so dangerous for our interests, for them to be allowed
to seek justice for their families.
This is about standing up for our country. This is about
standing up for our principles and our freedoms and for the truth.
Obama-Clinton Fundraiser
Imaad Zuberi Cops a Plea
Clinton foundation
contributor was conduit for Saudi sugardaddy Mohammed Al Rahbani.
October 31, 2019
Lloyd
Billingsley
Since his election to the
presidency in 2016, the Democrat-Deep State-Media axis has targeted Donald
Trump for foreign entanglements they claim should remove him from office. Now
comes news of foreign entanglements and foreign cash for the previous
president.
“Middleman helped Saudi give to
Obama inaugural,” proclaims the headline on the October 29 report by Alan Suderman and Jim
Mustian, billed as an Associated Press exclusive. As the authors explain, U.S. election law prohibits foreign
nationals from making contributions to the inaugural celebrations of American
presidents. As it turns out, the law was violated.
A “Saudi tycoon,” Sheikh Mohammed
Al Rahbani, routed hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Obama inaugural
through an “intermediary,” Imaad Zuberi. He, in turn, is a “jet-setting fundraiser and venture
capitalist,” who has “raised millions of dollars for Democrats and Republicans
alike over the years.” Despite the appearance of bipartisanship, Zuberi is more
narrowly tailored.
Imaad Zuberi “served as a top
fundraiser for both Obama and Hillary Clinton during their presidential runs,
including stints on both of their campaign finance committees.” One campaign,
not identified, took donations “in the name of one of Zuberi’s dead relatives”
and a political committee, also unidentified, “took donations from a person
Zuberi invented.” As the DOJ charged , Zuberi pleaded guilty to
“falsifying records to conceal his work as a foreign agent while lobbying
high-level U.S. government officials,” and it was hardly his first brush with
the law.
“Elite Fundraiser for Obama and
Clinton Linked to Justice Department Probe,” read the headline on Bill Allison’s August 28, 2015 exclusive in Foreign Policy . The calling card of the elite political fundraiser are
photographs, “bumping fists with President Barack Obama in front of a Christmas
tree at a White House reception. Sharing a belly laugh with Vice President Joe
Biden at a formal luncheon,” and posing “cheek to cheek with Democratic
presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.”
Not only is Zuberi a major
fundraiser for her campaign, notes Allison, “he also donated between $250,000
and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation, which has already come under fire for
accepting money from donors — many of them foreign — with interests before the
U.S. government while she was secretary of state.” And as Allison learned, Hillary’s 2008 campaign benefitted
from “straw donors” set up by Sant Singh Chatwal and Norman Hsu, both convicted
of election law violations.
Zuberi also used straw donors in
more recent illegal activity. As to the affiliation of those mysterious
campaigns and committees, the AP writers provide a hint.
Sheikh Mohammed Al Rahbani has
“talked about his support of Obama. He posted pictures on his website of
himself and his wife standing with Obama, former Vice President Joe Biden and
their spouses at a 2013 inaugural event.” Alas, “the website was taken down
shortly after Zuberi’s plea was made public.”
As Paul Delacourt of the FBI’s Los
Angeles office explains, “American influence is not for sale.” Mr. Zuberi
“lured individuals who were seeking political influence in violation of U.S.
law, and in the process, enriched himself by defrauding those with whom he
interacted.” According to the DOJ, that “could send him to prison for a lengthy
period of time.”
According to Suderman and Mustian,
“Zuberi’s case raises questions about the degree to which political committees
vet donors.” And as FEC boss Ellen Weintraub told the writers, “I’m
deeply concerned about foreigners trying to intervene in our elections, and I
don’t think we’re doing enough to try to stop it.” They might start by looking
in the right place.
Unconventional candidate Donald
Trump, a man of considerable means, financed his own campaign. Trump had no
need to consort with the likes of Zuberi or his dead relatives and those he
invents. And because Trump financed his own campaign, he owes nothing to
anybody, foreign or domestic.
Adam “sack of” Schiff, as Judge
Jeanine Pirro respectfully calls him, claimed he had evidence in plain sight
that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. Two
years and a Mueller investigation later, such evidence is nowhere in sight.
Schiff’s current inquisition, perhaps more bogus than the Mueller probe, is
best seen a diversion from John Durham’s criminal investigation of those who
launched the Russia hoax. That is where DOJ and election officials should be
looking.
Did Clinton Foundation donor Imaad
Zerubi turn up on any of those 30,000 subpoenaed emails Hillary Clinton
deleted? Did Zerubi see any classified material? Were there any texts from
Zerubi and his foreign clients on the cell phones Hillary’s squad smashed up
with hammers? Was Clinton grossly negligent, or just extremely careless? And so
on. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton also enjoyed other foreign intervention, right
out in the open.
Mexican foreign minister Marcelo
Ebrard, a former mayor of Mexico City, had worked with voter-registration and
participation groups in California, Arizona, Florida, Chicago, and elsewhere.
As Ebrard told Francisco Goldman of the New Yorker , in 2016 he “decided to get more involved” by working on
get-out-the-vote campaigns on behalf of Hillary Clinton.
A powerful foreign national openly
interferes in an American election, and nobody calls him on it. Now that
Clinton Foundation lackey Imaad Zuberi has copped a plea, the FEC and DOJ
should look into it.
Congress
overrides Obama veto of bill allowing 9/11 lawsuits
By
Tom Carter
On Wednesday, the US Congress overturned President Obama’s veto of
legislation that would permit victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks and
their families to sue Saudi Arabia. Declassified documents released this year
confirm the involvement of Saudi intelligence agents in the funding,
organization, and planning of the attacks—facts which were covered up for years
by the Bush and Obama administrations.
The vote, 97-1 in the Senate and 348-77 in the House of
Representatives, represents the first and only congressional override of
Obama’s presidency. Under the US Constitution, the president’s veto can be
overturned only by a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress.
The Obama administration and the military and intelligence
agencies, backed by sections of the media, including the New York Times, have
vigorously denounced the legislation. Obama personally, together with Central
Intelligence Agency director John Brennan, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, and
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford among others, have all
publicly opposed the bill.
In a letter to Congress opposing the legislation, Obama warned
that the bill would “threaten to erode sovereign principles that protect the
United States, including our U.S. Armed Forces and other officials, overseas.”
In a lead editorial on Wednesday, the New York Times similarly
warned that “if the bill becomes law, other countries could adopt similar
legislation defining their own exemptions to sovereign immunity. Because no
country is more engaged in the world than the United States—with military
bases, drone operations, intelligence missions and training programs—the Obama
administration fears that Americans could be subject to legal actions abroad.”
In other words, the bill would set a precedent for families of
victims of American aggression abroad—such as the tens of thousands of victims
of “targeted killings” ordered by Obama personally—to file lawsuits against US
war criminal in their own countries’ courts.
Obama denounced the vote with unusual warmth on Wednesday. “It's
an example of why sometimes you have to do what's hard. And, frankly, I wish
Congress here had done what's hard,” Obama declared. “If you’re perceived as
voting against 9/11 families right before an election, not surprisingly, that's
a hard vote for people to take. But it would have been the right thing to do
... And it was, you know, basically a political vote.”
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave,” Sir Walter Scott famously
wrote, “When first we practice to deceive!” As the tangled web of lies
surrounding the September 11 attacks continue to unravel, one senses that the
American ruling class and its representatives do not see a clear way out of the
dilemma.
Openly torpedoing the legislation is tantamount to an admission of
guilt. Indeed, the Obama administration, the military and intelligence
agencies, and theNew York Times are publicly working to cover up a crime
perpetrated by Al Qaeda and its backers in Saudi Arabia, which in turn is an
ally of the United States. The mere fact that Obama vetoed this bill
constitutes an admission that the US government is hiding something with
respect to the September 11 attacks.
The alternative, from the standpoint of the American ruling class,
is also fraught with risks. Court proceedings initiated by the families of
September 11 victims will inevitably expose the role played by the Saudi
monarchy, an ally of both Al Qaeda and the United States, in the September 11
attacks. This, in turn, will highlight long and sordid history of American
support for Islamic fundamentalism in the
Middle East, which continues to the present day in Syria and
Libya.
Perhaps most dangerously of all, a full public accounting of
the roles of Saudi intelligence agents in the September 11 attacks
will once again raise questions about the role of the American state in the
attacks. Why did US intelligence
agencies ignore the activities of Saudi agents before the attacks,
based on Saudi Arabia’s supposed status as a US ally?
Why did the US government deliberately cover up the Saudi
connection after the fact, instead claiming that Afghanistan was a “state
sponsor of terrorism” and that Iraq was developing “weapons of mass
destruction?” Why was nobody
prosecuted?
The New York Times, for its part, simply lied about the evidence
of Saudi complicity. “The legislation is motivated by a belief among the 9/11
families that Saudi Arabia played a role in the attacks, because 15 of the 19
hijackers, who were members of Al Qaeda, were Saudis,” the editors wrote. “But
the independent American commission that investigated the attacks found no
evidence that the Saudi government or senior Saudi officials financed the
terrorists.”
In fact, at least two of the hijackers received aid from Omar
al-Bayoumi, who was identified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a
Saudi intelligence agent with “ties to terrorist elements.” Some of the
hijackers were paid for work in fictitious jobs from companies affiliated with
the Saudi Defense Ministry, with which Al-Bayoumi was in close contact. The
night before the attacks, three of the hijackers stayed at the same hotel as
Saleh al-Hussayen, a prominent Saudi government official.
These and other facts were confirmed by the infamous 28-page
suppressed chapter of the 2002 report issued by the Joint Inquiry into
Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of
September 11, 2001. After 14 years of stalling, the document was finally
released to the public this summer.
Yet the New York Times continues to describe the Saudi monarchy,
the principal financier and sponsor of Islamic fundamentalist groups throughout
the world, as “a partner in combating terrorism.”
The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, passed Wednesday,
is a direct reaction to these revelations of Saudi complicity in the September
11 attacks, under pressure from organizations of survivors and families of
victims. The law amends the federal judicial code to allow US courts “to hear
cases involving claims against a foreign state for injuries, death, or damages
that occur inside the United States as a result of. .. an act of terrorism,
committed anywhere by a foreign state or official.”
Although the bill nowhere names Saudi Arabia, the Saudi government
has threatened massive retaliation, including by moving $750 billion in
assets out of the country before they can be seized in American legal
proceedings. This reaction alone confirms the monarchy’s guilt.
During Wednesday’s session, many of the statements on the floor of
the Senate were nervous and apprehensive. Casting his vote in favor of the
bill, Republican Senator Bob Corker declared, “I have tremendous concerns about
the sovereign immunity procedures that would be set in place by the countries
as a result of this vote.” More than one legislator noted that if the bill had
unintended consequences, it would be modified or repealed.
The anxious comments of legislators and the crisscrossing
denunciations within the ruling elite reflect the significance of this
controversy for the entire American political establishment. For 15 years, the
American population has been relentlessly told that the events of September 11,
2001 “changed everything,” warranting the elimination of democratic rights, the
militarization of the police, renditions, torture, assassinations, totalitarian
levels of spying, death and destruction across the Middle East, and trillions
of dollars of expenditures.
The collapse of the official version of that day’s events shows
that American politics for 15 years has been based on a lie.
No comments:
Post a Comment