Bringing attention to the forgotten victims.
Mark Tapson is the Shillman Fellow on Popular Culture for the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
Last week marked the seventh annual commemoration of the Yazidi genocide, though you wouldn’t know it from watching establishment media. Nor would you know that there is an ongoing genocide of Christians taking place in Nigeria, nor that throughout the Islamic world countless women and girls are enduring kidnapping, forced marriages, forced conversions of Christians to Islam, genocidal rape, and/or widespread sex trafficking even in countries that are supposedly our allies in the War on Terror.
To keep abreast of these crises, one needs to seek out the work of such concerned journalists as the Freedom Center’s own Raymond Ibrahim or Dutch journalist Sonja Dahlmans, who work desperately to bring international attention to the plight of the victims of an actual war on women.
I recently interviewed Ms. Dahlmans about these issues. She currently writes (in Dutch only) for the conservative political news site PAL NWS, and is studying Islam at the Melbourne School of Theology, where she will be starting her thesis.
For those readers who would like to help make a change - and to participate in the effort to protecting and liberating the victims of Islamic Jihad, sex slavery and rape, please contact Sonja on her Twitter at: @SonjaDahlmans.
Mark Tapson: Sonja, please tell us what the focus of your journalistic work has been in recent years, and why you’re passionate about it.
Sonja Dahlmans: I focus mainly on Christian persecution, but I have also written about persecution of the Yazidis in Iraq and Syria and of Hindu girls in Pakistan. Women and girls from these groups are often targeted in Islamic countries or regions. The abduction, rape, forced marriage and forced conversion (to Islam) of non-Muslim women and girls is a widespread problem. This is the subject I write about the most, because I am afraid it is still underestimated, although lately there has been more attention to it. Unfortunately not often in the mainstream media, the subject is almost only discussed on Christian (or other religious minority) pages or reports.
MT: This past week was another annual commemoration of the Yazidi genocide, but it’s not over, is it? Western media give this little attention, but there are still literally thousands of women and girls missing today, aren’t there?
SD: No, it is not over at all. First of all, ISIS is still active in Iraq and Syria as we have seen for example in Syria (last February) when they helped jihadists within al-Sina prison to escape. There are so called sleeper cells too and they still carry out attacks. With regard to the Yazidi women and girls that they took captive, there are still around 2.700 of them in the hands of ISIS, or at least they are missing and we don't know where they are. This is devastating for them and their families, as you can imagine. While there is only a little attention to this, the Yazidi women and girls that are probably still in the hands of ISIS, let's not forget that there are also Christian women and girls who were taken by ISIS and are still missing. That is a subject you hardly hear anything about, but it does not mean it doesn't exist.
I still hear and read that women and girls are being bought back, sometimes for a lot of money, and brought back to their families. This is really gruesome; these men, jihadists, have already earned money by trading these women, sexually exploiting them, and now earn money by selling them back to their own communities. There should be a lot more media coverage on this; it is not over, not by far for these victims and their families.
Then I would also add that in my opinion what happened under ISIS to Yazidi and Christian women and girls was not rape, but genocidal rape, as I have argued in an article that I wrote in 2017. There is a difference between rape during wartime and genocidal rape. The latter is often used for rape on the basis of a group’s race or ethnicity, but I think that in the case of the Yazidis and Christians we could say that this happened because they are part of an ethnic-religious group. A UN report states that ISIS came to destroy the Yazidis through sexual slavery. Genocidal rape is a strategy, it is organized from above, meant to make a group or community fear the rape of their women and daughters so much that they will try to escape the region. We know this has happened. And Yazidi victims are also telling stories of forced conversions or at least that they were being put under pressure to do so.
This is not new at all, unfortunately. The Sayfo, what is known as the Armenian genocide (but included Aramaic, Greek and Assyrian Christian women and girls as well) was also – according to many scholars – gender specific. Some even called it “a fate worse than dying.” During this period we have also seen forced conversions, abductions, planned, organized rape of women and very young girls.
MT: Can you tell us a bit about how sex trafficking is a problem even in countries that are supposedly American allies in the War on Terror, like Turkey?
SD: First of all, sex trafficking of Christian women and girls is a huge problem in several Islamic countries such as Nigeria, Syria, Egypt and Iraq. With regard to the women and girls ISIS took, we know from witness statements, from several reports, that some of them were held captive and/or were freed from a place in Turkey (Ankara, for example). Not just in Turkey; these women and girls were also sold to men from other countries in the Middle East, but Turkey certainly plays a huge role in this. This is also a claim the Yazidi Justice Committee makes in their report in which they say that Turkey, Iraq and Syria could and should be held responsible for not preventing genocide of the Yazidis within their own borders. This committee also states in their report that Turkey, bordering both Iraq and Syria, failed to take all available measures to protect Yazidi women and girls from transportation, trade and enslavement on Turkish territory.
Then there currently are Turkish-backed groups, supported by Ankara, operating in Syria who are – according to many observers – committing human rights violations. Some reports say that they are committing war crimes. Rape and torture, kidnapping too, of women are certainly huge parts of these violations.
According to a report by the UN, women and girls have been sold to men from Morocco, Libya, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan, Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria. In an interview on Dutch national radio I said a few months ago that I think it is time we hold these countries accountable for what their citizens have done. And this is, as I said during the interview, something we hardly read or hear about in the media nor in the political arena and I think it is high time we do. Some of these countries – all Islamic – are so called “allies in the war against terror” or even NATO allies. Where are the restrictions, where is the demand that these countries will find these men who purchased women for their own pleasure and hold them accountable for it?
MT: There is an ongoing, literal genocide of Christians being carried out right now in Nigeria, which the Western media largely ignores. Can you talk a bit about that and how Christian women and girls are being especially targeted?
SD: Yes, the situation in Nigeria is a huge problem right now. I not only read about this in reports from experts, but also hear it from Nigerian friends within the police force and journalists. According to a report by Aid to the Church in Need, 95% of the victims being held by Islamists in Nigeria are Christian. We know there are several groups active: Boko Haram is well known to the public, I think, but there is also Islamic State West African Province (ISWAP) and the militant form of the Fulani Muslims. Very young girls can get abducted and sold for example, but boys too, which makes parents decide to keep their children at home. Many children in Nigeria do not attend school due to fear for these abductions that actually happen on a daily basis. A few years ago we talked to each other about the situation of Leah Sharibu. She was one of the Dapchi girls that were abducted from school by Boko Haram, and Leah, being the only Christian girl, was never released. She was 14 at the time, she is still in captivity, although I believe she is now in the hands of ISWAP, a splinter cell of Boko Haram. They have declared that she, for refusing to deny Christ, will be their slave for the rest of her life.
I hear stories, but haven't been able yet to dive into this, that some of these rapes are being filmed and sold for example to pornography sites. That is a horrible thing; this would mean that this horrible act will be online, probably forever, and relatives might see their loved ones being brutally raped, might be confronted with these brutal acts. Obviously for these women and girls this is a nightmare; their dignity is completely stolen from them by these groups that have no respect for human life at all.
Abduction of women and girls – boys too – is a huge problem in Nigeria that is done not only by jihadist or Islamist extremist groups but also by bandits who are doing this to benefit financially. Then we must also not forget that Nigeria is, regardless of any specific religion, a transit and destination country for human trafficking. There are also, for example, so-called “madams” within Pentecostal churches who are trafficking young, underaged girls. But because Christians in almost every Islamic society are marginalized and/or discriminated against, Christian women and girls are much more vulnerable to be exposed to this type of violence and abuse.
MT: What are a few other problem areas around the world that people might not be aware of, where women and girls are targeted for abuses like sex trafficking and child marriage?
SD: This is a very, very big problem around the Islamic world in particular. For example in Egypt and Pakistan the situation for Christian girls – mostly underaged – is particularly problematic. In Pakistan an estimated 2.000 girls, Christian, Hindu and Sikh, “disappear” every year. They are abducted, forced to marry a Muslim man and then forced to convert to Islam. Within Islamic Law (sharia) a non-Muslim parent cannot be the guardian over a Muslim child. So by forcibly converting these girls to Islam, it is much more difficult, not impossible, for parents to get their daughters back. In Pakistan Christian (and Hindu) girls are also abducted and trafficked to China. Some are victims of sexual exploitation, others end up being “married” to a Chinese man. In some cases, both have happened: a girl or woman first being forced to marry a Chinese man, then forced to have sex with other men. This just adds to the vulnerability of religious minority women in Pakistan.
We see similar things happening in Egypt where Christian girls and women are taken from the streets into a car and married off to a Muslim man and converted to Islam. They then often appear in the media, veiled, claiming they have converted to Islam freely. That is most of the time not the case; it happens by force. Some girls from poor families are groomed with gifts, fancy dresses or nice meals, and lured into a relationship/friendship with a Muslim man. I also hear stories of women being abducted and having their clothes stripped off and then they are filmed which makes them very vulnerable for blackmail, threats to expose this type of material online or show it to their communities.
With regard to these forced conversions, don't forget that in many Islamic countries your religion is mentioned on your ID card. So once they have converted, under pressure, it will be really difficult to convert back to Christianity or Hinduism, due to the apostasy laws in Islam. And another important thing I would like to mention, is that this abduction and marrying fertile women and girls, converting them to Islam, also changes the demographics of a country. These Christian or Hindu or Sikh women and girls will now have Muslim children.
Don't forget that child marriage, including abduction, is also an issue within the Islamic communities in these countries as well. For example, wealthy men from Saudi Arabia are traveling (and have been doing so for at least decades) to poor Islamic regions or countries to "marry" minor girls under Sharia for a short period of time. This could be a couple of days, a week or a month. We know this is happening in Egypt, Mauretania, Indonesia, Yemen and many other countries as well. So there is also abuse of Muslim women and girls.
Bride kidnapping happens for example in former Soviet states such as Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and others. During the Soviet Union it was suppressed, but during the fall of the Soviet Union and since we have seen an increase of that custom again, unfortunately. Women's rights, girls' rights, are a problem in the countries I have mentioned, but we can definitely say that being a woman from a religious minority group makes women and girls even more vulnerable.
MT: Is there anything the ordinary American citizen can do to have an impact on any of these urgent issues?
SD: I think it all starts with getting the message out, speaking about it to each other, within your church, community, friends, family. Write to your congressman (or -woman) and ask what will be done for the Yazidis in Syria and Iraq, for example, that are still held captive. Make sure nobody can hide from the responsibility to help these women and girls, that they are not forgotten.
Video: Revealed - Obama’s Betrayal of SEAL Team Six
The new startling revelations.
Mon Oct 19, 2020
Frontpagemag.com
10
Subscribe to the Glazov Gang‘s YouTube Channel and follow us on Instagram: @JamieGlazov, Parler: @JamieGlazov and Twitter: @JamieGlazov.
With the new startling revelations now surfacing about the true fate of SEAL Team Six, Frontpage Mag editors have deemed it vital to run the special Glazov Gang episode in which Clare Lopez discusses Revealed: Obama’s Betrayal of SEAL Team Six.
Don’t miss it!
And make sure to watch our 3-Part-Special with Clare on Osama’s Post-9/11 Safe Haven in Iran, how 9/11 Came From Riyadh & Tehran and Helping Saudis Slip Away.
[I] Osama’s Post-9/11 Safe Haven in Iran.
[2] 9/11 Came From Riyadh & Tehran.
[3] Helping Saudis Slip Away.
Subscribe to the Glazov Gang‘s YouTube Channel and follow us on Instagram: @JamieGlazov, Parler: @JamieGlazov and Twitter: @JamieGlazov.
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
https://globalistbarackobama.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-disaster-of-barack-obama-democrats.html
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
Obama sabotaged the process of bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to justice and now, just as with the Taliban and Iran, Biden is finishing the criminal betrayal that his boss began.
Hayward: Susan Rice’s Abandonment of Democrats’ Khashoggi Crusade Frames Biden Saudi Trip
66JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images
JOHN HAYWARD
4 Jul 20220
7:23
Democrats have become quite muted in their criticism of Saudi Arabia, particularly over the death of political activist and writer Jamal Khashoggi, as President Joe Biden prepares to visit Riyadh in July and beg for oil from the kingdom he once promised to excommunicate from the civilized world. Obama Administration veteran Susan Rice, a major force in the Biden White House, seems to have lost her previously fervent interest in “punishing” the Saudis.
Human rights activists are grumbling about the sudden silence from Biden and his party. When Biden’s visit to Saudi Arabia was announced, Amnesty International Secretary General Agnes Callamard called it a “betrayal for Jamal Khashoggi, for Yemen, and a betrayal of what the Democratic party stood for over the last three years.”
“I have absolutely no doubt that Joe Biden will get nothing in terms of human rights protections and the visit will be seen as a full victory and endorsement of Saudi Arabia,” Callamard predicted.
These complaints are muted compared to the excoriation former President Donald Trump received for supporting the Saudi government after the murder of Khashoggi, who was lured into the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey in October 2018, violently executed by a team of Saudi agents, and dismembered.
Jamal Khashoggi’s fiance appears before his death was confirmed in Turkey in 2018 (Photo: Associated Press)
The Saudis have portrayed the killing as a rogue operation and prosecuted several alleged perpetrators. Many human rights groups dismissed those claims and accused Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), the de facto chief executive of Saudi Arabia, of ordering the murder.
Those groups believed the Saudi government deserved to be condemned and ostracized for the killing, atop their grievances against the Saudis for hitting civilian targets during their intervention against the Iran-backed Houthi insurgents of Yemen, as Callmard indicated.
Joe Biden promised to do exactly that during the 2020 presidential campaign, most famously during the Democratic primary debate in 2019. Asked if he would “punish” senior Saudi leaders for Khashoggi’s death, Biden replied:
Yes, and I said it at the time. Khashoggi was, in fact, murdered and dismembered, and I believe on the order of the crown prince. And I would make it very clear we were not going to, in fact, sell more weapons to them, we were going to, in fact, make them pay the price and make them, in fact, the pariah that they are. There’s very little social redeeming value in the present government in Saudi Arabia.
And I would also, as pointed out, I would end subsidies that we have, end the sale of material to the Saudis where they’re going in and murdering children, and they’re murdering innocent people. And so they have to be held accountable.
One of the biggest players in the Biden administration is Susan Rice, who was national security adviser to President Barack Obama when Joe Biden was vice president. Rice was a big part of the Obama administration’s bizarre obsession with turning away from the Gulf Arab states and embracing ultra-hostile Iran as America’s key partner in the Middle East, and she was a very loud critic of the Saudi government and President Trump after the Khashoggi murder.
Rice went directly after MBS in an October 2018 op-ed for the New York Times, calling him out for “extreme recklessness and immorality” that made him “a dangerous and unreliable partner for the United States.”
Rice heckled Americans “from Silicon Valley to the editorial pages of our leading papers” for getting suckered by “the crown prince’s promises of reform and the deft marketing of his leadership,” but said his true character had been exposed by “numerous impulsive and vicious actions” – from the war in Yemen to Khashoggi’s killing, from the repression of dissidents to his brutal seizure of power and money from other royals.
“If we fail to punish him directly and target only those around him, the crown prince will be further emboldened to take extreme actions,” Rice urged, going right up to the line of regime change.
“The United States was wrong to hitch our wagon to Prince Mohammed, but we would be even more foolish to continue to do so,” she declared.
That was then, and this is now, with President Biden’s approval ratings tumbling into the abyss because of skyrocketing inflation and gas prices, and Democrats looking at a midterm election bloodbath.
Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal (2nd R) welcomes US Vice President Joe Biden (C) at the Riyadh airbase on October 27, 2011, upon his arrival in the Saudi capital with a US official delegation to offer condolences to the King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz following the death of his brother, Crown Prince Sultan. (AFP via Getty Images)
The Obama-Biden administration supported the Saudi intervention in Yemen when it began, but in a 2019 interview with the Huffington Post, Susan Rice absolved both Obama and Biden of having to address their old policies or speak up on the death of Khashoggi – an event she airily dismissed as “over a year old” at the time. The Huffington Post was very unsatisfied this answer, presaging today’s left-wing grumbles about Biden attempting to repair his relationship with the Saudis.
The Obama brain trust’s pivot to Iran lies in shambles, wiped out by the hostility and intransigence of the aspiring nuclear power in Tehran. The Iranians certainly are not going to rescue the Democrats from the electoral consequences of Joe Biden’s malicious energy policies.
The Saudis won’t either, in part because they remember Biden and Rice’s insults, and because their own geopolitical agenda does not include surging oil production to bring prices down. French President Emmanuel Macron took the remarkable step on Monday of warning Biden not to waste his time in Riyadh in front of press cameras, very much aware that his “personal comments” to Biden would be heard around the globe.
Macron told Biden that the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is at maximum oil production capacity now, and the Saudis could only increase their output by 150,000 barrels per day, “maybe a little bit more.”
The Emiratis quickly confirmed Macron’s statement was accurate and the world price of oil promptly went up, the exact opposite of what Biden was hoping for.
According to Politico this month, some Democrats are quietly fuming at Biden for dropping his tough campaign talk when nothing in Saudi Arabia has changed much. Some of them had ideas for little snubs Biden might deliver during his July trip to show the Saudis that his administration remains displeased, without antagonizing them too much – a pathetic walkback from a party that once vowed to isolate Saudi Arabia the way Russia was isolated after invading Ukraine.
Tulsi Gabbard: U.S. Government ‘Is Hiding the Truth’ on 9/11 Terror Attacks
JEFF POOR
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.
Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor
Obama-Clinton Fundraiser Imaad Zuberi Cops a Plea
Clinton foundation contributor was conduit for Saudi sugardaddy Mohammed Al Rahbani.
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.
WHY WOULD THE OBOMB WORK SO HARD FOR THE INVADER?
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