Displaying posts published in

February 2017

Banning The Muslim Brotherhood By Rachel Ehrenfeld

President Trump is considering designating the global Muslim Brotherhood organization as terrorist. It’s about time.

Two days before he signed the Executive Order on “Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals, the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) began organizing nationwide protests against the anticipated order, which the mischaracterized the suspension of U.S. visas to Muslim refugees and travelers from only seven out of fifty Muslim-majority countries, as a “ban.” CAIR was immediately joined by progressive Left organizations that protested the election of Donald Trump as President. Thus Left-leaning ill-informed organizations, CEOs of tech companies (How many of their employees are immigrants, or Work-Visa holders from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen?) and Democratic-run-States joined forces with MB-affiliated groups to undermine the power of the President and the security of the nation.

On October 28, 2005, President George W. Bush denounced IslamoFascist movements that call for a “violent and political vision: the establishment, by terrorism, subversion, and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom.” The Muslim Brotherhood was not on his list.

On June 6, 2006, this author proposed, in FrontOageMag to outlaw the Muslim Brotherhood. The article concluded: “In the interest of preserving freedom in the U.S. while advancing it globally, it is time for our government to thoroughly investigate the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots and consider designating it as a terrorist organization.

In the same vein, the U.S should not allow foreign donations to U.S. educational, and public organizations and institutions from Islamic countries that prohibit religious freedom.”

These suggestions, however, were dismissed on grounds that the MB is a “reformist” organization. It took years for many in the West to realize the MB has fooled them into endorsing the oxymoron of “Political Islam.” It took the Muslim Brotherhood, first in Tunisia and Egypt, and with other radical Islamist groups in Syria, Libya, and Iraq to destabilize the Middle East. Only after the MB globalized their murderous ideology and threatened Muslim nations in the Middle East, several Arab countries banned the organization. More recently concerned groups in the West have been considering banning the MB and its affiliates

Below is a version of the June 6, 2006, FrontPageMag article:

The Muslim Brotherhood (Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimun)[2] also known as the Ikhwan is a good example of what resident Bush described on October 28, 2005, and what we must protect the U.S. against.

The Muslim Brotherhood (“MB”) organization describes itself as a political and social revolutionary movement; it was founded in March 1928 in Egypt by Hassan al-Banna, who objected to Western influence and called for the return to original Islam.[3]

How We’ll Stop a Rogue Federal Agency Congress can defund Elizabeth Warren’s unaccountable and unconstitutional CFPB. By Rep.Jeb Hensarling

Mr. Hensarling, a Texas Republican, (District 5)is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

The Obama presidency placed no greater burden on America’s growth potential than the avalanche of regulations that smother the U.S. economic system. The most destructive and dangerous of the new regulatory bureaucracies created by the Democrat-dominated 111th Congress is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The CFPB stands with ObamaCare as a crowning “achievement” of Mr. Obama’s transformation of America. With unprecedented automatic funding provided directly by the Federal Reserve, the agency is unanswerable to anyone. Democrats chose to insulate it from Congress, the president, voters and the democratic process. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia noted as much in its recent PHH v. CFPB decision, which ruled the bureau’s governing structure unconstitutional. The court said the unelected CFPB director “enjoys more unilateral authority than any other officer in any of the three branches of government of the U.S. Government, other than the President.”

The CFPB is arguably the most powerful, least accountable agency in U.S. history. CFPB zealots have the power to determine the “fairness” of virtually every financial transaction in America. The agency defines its own powers and can launch investigations without cause, imposing virtually any fine or remedy, devoid of due process. It requires lenders essentially to read their clients’ minds, know and weigh their clients’ comprehension levels, and forecast future risk. It can compel the production of reams of data and employ methodologies that “infer” harm without finding any specific instance of harm or knowing violation.

The regulatory web spun by the CFPB can make every provider of financial services guilty until proven innocent, inviting selective enforcement and financial shakedowns. The CFPB is the embodiment of James Madison’s warning in Federalist No. 47 that “the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

This tyranny has harmed the very consumers it purports to help. Since the CFPB’s advent, the number of banks offering free checking has drastically declined, while many bank fees have increased. Mortgage originations and auto loans have become more expensive for many Americans.

No corner of American finance is beyond the CFPB’s grasp, even auto dealers—which are specifically excluded from its jurisdiction by the Dodd-Frank Act. To dodge this legal constraint, the CFPB regulates auto dealers through enforcement “bulletins” on auto lenders, employing statistical analysis rather than specific acts to charge lenders with discriminatory lending. The race of borrowers is inferred based on the borrowers’ names and home addresses. Through this ruse they smear and shake down lenders.

The Non-Silence of Elizabeth Warren The next Democratic President is going to get the Trump treatment.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-non-silence-of-elizabeth-warren-1486598042

The activist base of the Democratic Party is demanding rage and resistance to Donald Trump and all his works, and Senate Democrats are listening. Jeff Sessions was confirmed as Attorney General Wednesday on a party-line vote, though not without more pointless melodrama and the informal launch of Elizabeth Warren’s 2020 presidential campaign.

The Massachusetts progressive’s latest diatribe against her fellow Senator Sessions was interrupted after she repeatedly violated Senate Rule XIX, which prohibits members from besmirching the character and motives of their colleagues. After warnings that she ignored and a Republican motion, the Senate rebuked Ms. Warren 49-43. As a result, she lost her privileges to participate in the rest of the AG debate.

Ms. Warren is now claiming she was “silenced,” which is true if she means the Senate floor for an interval lasting fewer than 24 hours. It is not true if she’s talking about the Facebook Live video she taped outside the Senate chamber on Tuesday night, her live call-in to Rachel Maddow’s prime-time television show, her sundry media appearances on Wednesday or her fundraising emails off the incident.

“This is not what America is about—silencing speech,” Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Wednesday, shortly after Ms. Warren announced an April publication date for her new book, “This Fight Is Our Fight.” For a martyr to censorship, she’s remarkably prolific.

Social media are overflowing with memes featuring the likes of Rosa Parks,Harriet Tubman and various suffragettes along with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s comment about the Senate sanction: “She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted.” Likening one of the most powerful people in the world to an underground-railroad conductor may be a tad histrionic, but you be the judge.

HRH Warren isn’t a victim, even if she enjoys feeling she is, and Republicans aren’t trying to get her to “shut up,” as if that’s possible. She knowingly broke protocol and said Mr. Sessions was “racist” and prosecuting “a campaign of bigotry,” among other gross, false and personal insults that Democrats now feel entitled to hurl. Our guess is that Ms. Warren wanted to be punished so she could play out this political theater.

A question for Republicans is whether Mr. McConnell enhanced the Warren brand by responding to her provocations in this way. She already has a formidable platform but the story dominated Wednesday’s news. Then again, sooner or later Mr. McConnell had to send a signal that Senate rules can’t be violated with impunity.

The larger context is that Democrats have slowed Senate confirmation of President Trump’s cabinet to the slowest pace since Eisenhower, and by some measures since the 19th century. Though they lack the votes to defeat anyone, they’ve boycotted hearings, maxed out debate time, denied routine courtesies and delayed procedural votes.

New Jersey’s Cory Booker even testified against Mr. Sessions, which no Senator had felt to do against a colleague since Congress was formed in 1789—a period that includes the Civil War and two world wars.

America’s 19th nervous breakdown by Richard Baehr

With apologies to the Rolling Stones, America’s nervous breakdown since President Donald Trump’s inauguration seems to be of a different order of ‎magnitude than the many other emotional meltdowns of recent decades (the Clinton, Bush, or Obama derangement syndromes). It will almost certainly worsen in the weeks ahead with continued ‎fights over immigration and the Supreme Court nominee.‎

Sunday night, America celebrated one of its true national holidays: Super Bowl ‎Sunday, an event watched by 100 million people, a third of the population. ‎This year, the political fog that envelops all matters these days naturally ‎also surrounded the football game, which turned out be a masterpiece as these games go. In the ‎weeks leading up to the game, one team became the Trump team, the other the anti-‎Trump team. A startling come-from-behind victory for the Trump team (the New ‎England Patriots) was immediately viewed as a repeat of the upset on Election Day, Nov. 8, and was caricatured as such.

The absurdity, of course, is that the owner of the Trump team is a ‎Jewish Democrat (though friendly to Trump), and the owner of the anti-Trump ‎team (the Atlanta Falcons) is a Jewish Republican. So, too, Trump carried Georgia ‎and was beaten badly in Massachusetts. The halftime performer, Lady Gaga, was ‎attacked from the left for not making a personal statement slamming Trump. Everything now has to be viewed as political. ‎

With the game over, America’s annual six-month nightmare without professional or college football has begun. This will allow ‎partisans to focus more intently on the heated political wars. On the U.S.-Israel ‎front, however, there is likely to be significant change and arguably far fewer ‎political battles between the two countries.‎

In the final weeks of President Barack Obama’s term, the administration seemed somewhat ‎obsessed with Israel. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power abstained on ‎Security Council Resolution 2334. Secretary of State John Kerry felt the need to ‎give an hour-long speech justifying the U.N. inaction that allowed the ‎resolution to pass, and fire a few parting shots at Israel and its prime minister over ‎settlements, as well as trying and failing one more time to make a persuasive case ‎for the Iran nuclear deal. The Obama team released money ($221 million) that had ‎been held up by Congress to send to the Palestinian Authority. ‎

Israel has been an afterthought in the early weeks of the Trump administration. ‎This is not a bad thing. There have been many presidential executive orders, but ‎none directing a move or directing planning for a move of the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The Iran nuclear agreement has not been torn up. The ‎administration has been far less fixated on Israeli settlement activity, despite ‎announcements by Israel of construction plans for 5,000 new units that in the ‎Obama years would have caused the faces of the administration spokespeople to ‎become purple with rage and scorn.

The administration, while releasing a short ‎statement on settlements, allowed that policy changes would not come until after ‎Prime Minister Netanyahu comes to Washington to meet with Trump next ‎week. The administration also sharply reversed policy toward Iran, choosing to ‎put the country on notice for its ballistic missile tests, which violated U.N. Security ‎Council Resolution 2231, the resolution that accompanied the nuclear deal. The ‎Trump White House also initiated sanctions against a few dozen Iranian individuals ‎and firms for the missile tests. Most dramatically, the Trump administration ‎seemed anxious to communicate to the leaders in Tehran that the days of America ‎serving as Iran’s lawyer and backstop — excusing away Iranian violations of one ‎agreement or another — were over.‎

The national newspaper of record for the anti-Trump forces, The New York Times, ‎chose to see in the release of the administration’s short statement on settlements ‎an action that fit a pattern of continuity of Trump foreign policy with Obama ‎foreign policy. They saw the same thing in the fact that Trump had neither disowned ‎the Iran nuclear deal nor had gone to war yet with the mullahs. Sadly for the paper, the ‎announcement condemning the ballistic missile tests and announcing sanctions ‎came shortly thereafter. The New York Times may have been clutching at straws ‎to suggest that it retained some semblance of balance in evaluating Trump (he is more ‎like Obama, so he is not that bad on X and Y).‎

The Iranian authorities hanged 87 people in the month of January 2017, that’s one execution every nine hours.

Iran Human Rights (FEB 3 2017): According to reports compiled by Iran Human Rights, the Iranian authorities hanged 87 people in the month of January 2017, including two juvenile prisoners and six prisoners who were executed in public. Out of the 87 executions, only 19 of them were announced by official Iranian sources. Most of the executions which were carrieed out in Iran in January 2017 were for drug related charges.

According to research conducted by Iran Human Rights, executions tend to significantly increase in the months leading to an election in Iran but significantly decrease or stop a couple weeks before the election. Iran Human Rights is deeply concerned that a new wave of executions have started in Iran and worries that the number of executions will increase following the “Fajr Decade” celebrations.

Iran Human Rights urges the international community, especially European countries, to pay attention to the execution crisis in Iran, and calls on all countries which have diplomatic relations with the Iranian authorities to call on the Iranian authorities to stop executions.

“In the month of January, we witnessed an average of one execution every nine hours, including two juvenile offenders and six public executions. Lack of reactions from the international community to these executions encourages the Iranian authorities to execute even more people in the months leading to the 2017 presidential election,” says Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, spokesperson for Iran Human Rights.

Poll: Travel ban is one of Trump’s most popular executive orders Business Insider Pamela Engel

President Donald Trump’s executive order barring refugees and citizens from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the US is one of his most popular so far, according to a new poll from Morning Consult and Politico.

The order has a 55% approval rating (with 35% saying they “strongly approve”) with only 38% of voters polled saying they disapprove of it.

Opinions about the ban fall along partisan lines — 82% of Republicans support the ban, while 65% of Democrats oppose it.

The only other executive order more popular than the travel ban is the one revoking federal funding for so-called immigration sanctuary cities. That order has a 55% approval rating, with only 33% disapproving.

Morning Consult and Politico’s poll was conducted between Feb. 2 and Feb. 4.

The seven countries included in Trump’s executive order were first flagged by the Obama administration as “countries of particular concern” for visa screening, but critics have accused the Trump administration of targeting Muslims specifically with the travel ban.

Last week, a judge issued a stay on the executive order which suspends its implementation.

While the travel ban seems to be fairly popular, Trump’s overall approval rating is slipping — only 47% of those surveyed in this poll said they approve of the job Trump is doing, which is down two points from the previous week. His disapproval rating rose five points to 46%.