U.S. Immigration Policy and Exposure to Terror — on The Glazov Gang
How terrorists use immigration fraud to do us harm — and how U.S. leadership does nothing about it.
http://jamieglazov.com/2015/01/04/u-s-immigration-policy-and-exposure-to-terror-on-the-glazov-gang/
Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi made an extraordinary speech [1] on New Year’s Day to Cairo’s Al-Azhar and the Awqaf Ministry calling for a long overdue virtual ecclesiastical revolution in Islam. This is something no Western leader has the had the courage to do, certainly not Barack Obama, despite his Muslim education.
Accusing the umma (world Islamic population) of encouraging the hostility of the entire world, al-Sisi’s speech is so dramatic and essentially revolutionary it brings to mind Khrushchev’s famous speech exposing Stalin. Many have called for a reformation of Islam, but for the leader of the largest Arab nation to do so has world-changing implications.
Here are the key parts as translated on Raymond Ibrahim’s blog [1]:
I am referring here to the religious clerics. We have to think hard about what we are facing—and I have, in fact, addressed this topic [2] a couple of times before. It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [Islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible!
That thinking—I am not saying “religion” but “thinking”—that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the years, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. It’s antagonizing the entire world!
Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live? Impossible!
I am saying these words here at Al Azhar, before this assembly of scholars and ulema—Allah Almighty be witness to your truth on Judgment Day concerning that which I’m talking about now.
All this that I am telling you, you cannot feel it if you remain trapped within this mindset. You need to step outside of yourselves to be able to observe it and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective.
The sister of a pilot killed on Sept. 11 says Sen. Feinstein’s torture report has done the unthinkable — turned our enemies into victims
In November of 2002, my two brothers and I traveled to FBI offices in Alexandria, Virginia and met with one of the lead federal prosecutors who was working on the criminal investigation of the 9/11 attacks. We were there to watch a video animation of American Airlines Flight 77, the plane that was hijacked by five Al Qaeda terrorists and flown into the Pentagon.
We were desperate to find out anything we could about the flight because our brother, Charles F. “Chic” Burlingame, III, was its captain, the pilot in command that fateful morning.
The video we were about to see — put together from the plane’s flight data recorder, or “black box,” and FAA radar tracking — would show us the plane’s every movement, from the time it pushed back from the gate at Dulles Airport to the moment just before it crashed into the Pentagon at 530 mph, one hour and 27 minutes later.
We sat in silence for the entire duration of the video. The animation noted when radio contact ceased and when the plane’s unique radar signature, its transponder, was turned off. We watched, barely breathing, as the Boeing 757 changed course. Almost immediately after it completed its 180 degree turn, the plane began to pitch and roll violently.
We knew this was when Chic was fighting for his life. It lasted more than six agonizing minutes. And then it stopped.
Every 9/11 family member has visions of their loved one’s last moments. I don’t know who is more fortunate, those who know the precise details of their relative’s death or those who don’t — those who can only imagine it from the countless horrific images captured in real time and published over and over in the media for the last 13 years.
Every family member can speak to this, but here are the words of one FDNY firefighter about the 20,000 body parts they found, sometimes digging on their hands and knees: “Imagine that the twin towers were two giant blenders that were suddenly turned on. The people who didn’t make it out were literally torn to pieces and flung from river to river, on the streets and rooftops of Lower Manhattan.”
This is the context for the families of the victims as we watched Sen. Dianne Feinstein declare from the well of the U.S. Senate last month that the harsh interrogation of the men who plotted and carried out our loved ones’ savage murders, and who planned a second wave of terror, was “a stain on our values and our history.”
THE FOLLOWING QUOTE IS CIRCULATING ON THE INTERNET AND ATTRIBUTED TO MARCO POLO….IT HAS NOT, TO DATE BEEN VERIFIED: ” The militant Muslim is the person who beheads the infidel, while the moderate Muslim holds the feet of the victim. – Marco Polo (c.1254 – January 8-9, 1324)RSK
If the same exact criticisms being made against Islam today were also made centuries ago, is it reasonable to automatically dismiss them all as “Islamophobic” — that is, as “unfounded fear of and hostility towards Islam,” as the Council on American Islamic Relations [1] would have it?
This is the question I often ask myself whenever I read pre-modern writings on Islam. Take that elementary schoolbook hero, Marco Polo and his famous memoirs [2], for example. By today’s standards, the 13th century Venetian merchant would be denounced as a rabid “Islamophobe.” For me, however, his writings contain a far more important lesson — one in continuity — and deserve closer scrutiny.
Before examining Polo’s observations, it should be noted that his anthropological accounts are, by and large, objective. That is, unlike simplistic explanations [3] that portray him as a prototypical “Orientalist” with an axe to grind against the “Other” — specifically non-whites and non-Christians — in fact, Polo occasionally portrays the few Christians he encountered in a negative light (such as those of the island of Socotra) and frequently praises non-Christians, including Muslims.
For example, he hails the Brahmins of India as being “most honorable,” possessing a “hatred for cheating or of taking the goods of other persons. They are likewise remarkable for the virtue of being satisfied with the possession of one wife (p.298 [4]).” And he refers to one Muslim leader as governing “with justice” (p.317 [5]) and another who “showed himself [to be] a very good lord, and made himself beloved by everybody (p.332 [6]).”
That said, Polo clearly had no problem being blunt about Islam (political correctness being nonexistent in the Middle Ages). Whereas he praised the Brahmins for their “hatred for cheating or of taking the goods of other persons,” regarding the Muslims of Tauris, (modern day Iraq), he wrote:
AN ABC-Washington Post poll shows 61 percent of Democrats support Hillary Clinton for president in 2016, far more than other contenders. If she wins the White House, health reform could become even more painful than ObamaCare.
Clinton ducks questions about her views on health reform. But the plan she proposed in 1993, as first lady, raises concerns.
That proposal was even more coercive than ObamaCare. She put price controls on doctors and limits on how much health care the nation could consume annually and how much you could buy for your own family — even if you paid for it yourself.
True, that was 20 years ago. But it’s an important window into her thinking.
Before Americans choose candidates for 2016, they ought to ask how much power they want government to have over their health care and whether Clinton stands by the coercive plan she proposed the last time she was in the White House.
Start with whether the government should force us to have insurance. The Obama administration is using ads and street fairs to convince people to get covered. Millions are still saying “no.” ObamaCare penalizes the uninsured but also offers exemptions, including just pleading “hardship.”
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 90 percent of the uninsured will not be penalized.
Let Andrzejewski Open the Books in Illinois Governor-elect Rauner must appoint a comptroller. Adam Andrzejewski is the right man for the job.
Bruce Rauner’s triumph as the new Republican governor of Obama’s home state was the icing on the GOP’s national victory cake on Election Night. The cherry atop that frosting would be for Rauner to appoint open-government advocate Adam Andrzejewski as Illinois comptroller.
Rauner’s unusual and invaluable opportunity springs from tragedy.
Former comptroller Judy Baar Topinka died December 10, soon after suffering a stroke. She was 70. The veteran Republican officeholder’s unexpected departure allows Rauner to name someone to fill the four-year term to which Topinka, ironically, won reelection on November 4.
Adam Andrzejewski is the right man for this job. The 45-year-old resides in Hinsdale, a Chicago suburb, with his wife of 14 years and their three daughters. From 1997 to 2007, Adam and his younger brother, Abe, managed American Marketing and Publishing, the country’s largest producer of hometown telephone books. As the company reached 165 employees, 240 communities served, and $20 million in sales, Adam sold his shares, pocketed his winnings, and pivoted to public service.
Adam ran a conservative campaign for governor in 2010 and secured the endorsement of none other than Lech Walesa. The Cold War hero and post–Iron Curtain president of Poland flew to Chicago to campaign for Adam. The Nobel laureate declared: “I see the same qualities in Adam Andrzejewski as I saw in my friend Ronald Reagan.” Alas, the liberal local media largely overlooked these accolades, despite their newsworthy source. Adam ultimately lost the GOP primary.
Adam Andrzejewski receives the endorsement of Solidarity founder, Lech Walesa.
Undeterred, Adam used his own money to launch a non-profit called “For the Good of Illinois” and another, Open the Books. OTB has lived by its slogan: “Every dime, online, in real time.”
‘No Labels” seems like a dodge to me. Or at least it used to.
I’m referring not so much to the No Labels group as to its idée fixe. The group was established in 2010 by an array of moderate Republicans and what we used to think of as “New Democrats.” Describing itself as a “movement” — the better to suggest a grassroots surge rather than a Beltway-insider gambit — No Labels devotes itself to making Washington “work”: to transcending partisan and ideological branding, to finding the common ground needed to solve the nation’s problems.
But what if Washington is the nation’s problem? Not the much-touted dysfunction of our central government but the very conceit that the problems of 320 million people are suitable to being solved by a Beltway political elite whose lives are increasingly remote from those of the people they nominally represent?
To say that “no labels” is a dodge is to use too loaded a word. No Labels members are deeply concerned about our country, particularly our security. Their desire to fix what ails us is genuine. To my mind, though, they are hearkening to a time more fondly imagined than actually lived — a time when political adversaries put their differences aside and addressed challenges cooperatively. Presuming their good faith, as I do, it is better to say the project is ill-conceived.
Our political divide is about principles, not labels. Labels have always been given to sets of principles, but principles and politics have never been mutually exclusive. The practice of politics in a constitutional democracy is, after all, the repetition of a calculation about principle: Knowing that everyone does not agree with me but that I have opportunities to convince them over time, how much can I afford to compromise today such that my principles can advance in the short run and prevail in the long run?
Still, the No Labels people do have a point when they argue that labels hinder effective governance. I don’t think, though, that this is because the labels make us intransigent. It is because the labels make ever less sense. Their main effect today is to obscure the real scrimmage line in our politics.
THE ONLY EXPERT IS YORAM ETTINGER WHO WINS THE DEBATE HANDS DOWN….PAL-ARABS HAVE BEEN INFLATING THEIR NUMBERS IN RISIBLE FORM…..”REFUGEE” STATUS IS NOW INHERITED FOR FOUR GENERATIONS…..ARAB DOMICILES TRIPLE THE NUMBER OF “RESIDENTS” IN THEIR HOME…. AND IN SPITE OF ALL THE CON MEN IN THE ARAB NUMBERS RACKET, ETTINGER’S STUDY DEBUNKS THE SO CALLED “DEMOGRAPHIC TIME BOMB”…..RSK
On eve of 2015, Israel’s population hits 8.3 million
Data predicted equal Jewish, Arab population in Israel and territories by 2016.
Israeli experts vigorously disagree over the accuracy of a new Palestinian report predicting that the number of Palestinians living in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza would equal the number of Israel’s Jews by 2016.
Some criticized the report, claiming there were political motivations behind the numbers and that they were meant to scare Israel into making concessions to the Palestinians.
Others disapproved of the criticism, describing it as politically motivated and un-academic.
The report released this week by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics summarized data from 2014, determining that the projected number of Palestinians in the world is approximately 12.1 million, of whom 4.62 million live in the West Bank and Gaza, 1.46 million live in Israel, 5.34 million are in Arab countries, and some 675,000 reside in foreign countries.
The number of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza and Jews in Israel will total about 6.42 million each in 2016 if current growth rates remain constant, predicted the bureau. It determined that, by the end of 2020, the number of Palestinians in those areas would total 7.14 million, compared to 6.87 million Jews.
Kobi Michael, a senior research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies and a senior lecturer at Ariel University, wrote a strategic assessment in October regarding the importance of the demographic factor in government policy toward the Palestinians.
“The demographic issue has become a source of profound controversy in Israel. Many see the demographic processes as a threat to the future of Israel as a state that is both Jewish and democratic, thereby necessitating rapid disengagement from the Palestinians, whether by means of a negotiated settlement or unilateral steps. Others dispute the need for panic, pointing instead to data indicating much more moderate trends: the Jewish majority will continue and even grow, both in the State of Israel proper and in the whole of the western land of Israel, certainly if the Gaza Strip is excluded….
“…In 2013 the Institute for Zionist Strategies published an updated, comprehensive study…. The most significant differences [from the “demographers of doom”] indicate that the number of Palestinians in the PA is lower by 0.7-1.3 million than the number presented by the more alarmist approach and the data of the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. Moreover, the data shows a Jewish majority in all of [the area west of the Jordan River] today and a more significant majority in the coming two decades, especially if the Gaza Strip is excluded from the equation.
“This study contends that despite the forecasts of a demographic disaster, the Jewish population of the land of Israel has grown significantly over the last 120 years. According to the report, in 2012 the population in western Israel reached 10,755,000 (differing from Prof. DellaPergola’s 12 million), which included a greater Jewish population of 6,332,900 (i.e., those who are eligible for Israeli citizenship according to the Law of Return though not necessarily Jewish according to religious law, or individuals unaffiliated religiously who nonetheless align themselves with the Jewish people); 4,109,000 Muslims (2,726,000 in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank); 181,000 Christians (52,000 in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank); and some 132,000 Druze. The rate of the expanded Jewish population is 59.14 percent of the total population of the western land of Israel [and a 66% Jewish majority in the combined area of Judea, Samaria pre-1967 Israel]….
Al Sharpton’s notoriety stems not only from his repellent bigotry, but also from his skill for practicing extortion on corporations for “donations.”
Having had my stomach full of news about Al Sharpton, the card sharp of racism, I decided to search the Internet for more information on him. Quite by chance in the course of my search I happened upon a few articles which detailed how Adolf Hitler was able to persuade so many German businesses and industries to support the burgeoning and noisy NSDAP (the National Socialist German Workers Party, or the Nazi Party) from the 1920’s on up through his accession of the Chancellorship in 1933 . I read many of these articles and book reviews, suspecting, and as it turned out, rightly, that Al Sharpton’s methods of garnering public and not-so-public support and money for his National Action Now (NAN) organization, emulated those of Hitler and the Nazis.
A black “NSDAP,” or, if you will, a National Socialist Black Workers Party (NSBAP)? Or, just plain NAN? Sharpton professes much interest in and anger over the plight of the “economically oppressed and exploited” black man. If there is any truth to Sharpton’s rants, it is that the Democratic Party and its economic policies are responsible for black unemployment and also its “social” policies of keeping blacks dependent on government largesse (aka, handouts and entitlements). Or, as some pundits would have it: Keeping them on the welfare state plantation. But this is something Sharpton will never recognize or permit. Manumitting blacks from Democratic possession and thralldom would liberate them from him and from government dependency.
Hitler’s addresses to German businessmen were, to put it mildly, preliminary shakedowns. Later, after he seized power in 1933, would come the arm-twisting, openly soliciting the “cooperation” of big business – or else face nationalization and/or a one-way trip to a concentration camp.
Reading up on how Hitler cajoled, persuaded, and subtly threatened German business executives and tycoons to support the Nazi Party with financial donations or at least to speak well of it or not actively oppose it concerning the Party’s vision and plans for economic recovery, I noted that Sharpton’s extortionate methods differ not a whit from Hitler’s.
