While much of Washington wrings its hands about how kindly to treat “Americans” who have fought for the headchopper ISIS bunch in the Middle East, Ted Cruz has a better idea, namely to turn the Islamic State into a roach motel as far as US citizens are concerned: you can get in, but you can’t get out, at least to the United States.
Below. ISIS fighters are bloodthirsty even by Islamic standards.
Blasts Obama’s foreign policy as ‘detached from reality’
Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) will file legislation on Friday to ban American citizens who fight alongside the Islamic State (IS) and other terror groups from returning to the United States, where they pose a significant terror threat, according to sources in the senator’s office.
Cruz, who first proposed the legislation last year, seeks to strip those Americans who travel abroad to fight with IS (also known as ISIL or ISIS) of their U.S. citizenship rights and stop them from coming back stateside.
The bill, known as the Expatriate Terrorist Act (E.T.A.), tightens and updates existing regulations by which a U.S. citizen effectively renounces his or her citizenship.
Cruz said that he is filing the bill partly in response to President Obama’s Tuesday State of the Union address, which he described as “detached from reality” on the foreign policy front.
“President Obama’s approach to foreign policy refuses to acknowledge the threats our enemies pose to our national security—it is detached from reality and making the world a more dangerous place,” said Cruz, who also is releasing a new video that takes aim at Obama for misleading the nation about these threats in his annual address.
Cruz said stripping American IS fighters of their citizenship is a step toward securing the country and restoring the country’s image.
“We’ve seen the grave consequence of the Obama-Clinton-Kerry foreign policy unravel with respect to Iran, Russia, and now Yemen,” Cruz said. “These consequences are not confined to faraway lands. They directly threaten America and our allies.”
“That is why this week, I am re-filing the Expatriate Terrorist Act, which prevents Americans who have fought abroad for designated terrorist groups from returning to the United States,” he said. “I look forward to working with senators on both sides of the aisle on this and additional measures to secure our nation and restore America’s leadership in the world.” Continue reading this article
At any rate, Sessions now runs two subcoms rather than one biggie. I have no idea whether that is an equitable trade-off in the Washington merry-go-round of power. Clearly the Alabama Senator intends to make it work. One gig is running the Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee but the more important position for the friends of American sovereignty is as Chair of the newly renamed (by Sessions) “Immigration and the National Interest”subcommittee.
WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) issued the following statement today after being named Chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee on Armed Services and the Chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee on Judiciary:
“I am honored to have the opportunity to chair these two crucial subcommittees.
My focus as Chairman of the Strategic Forces subcommittee will include: ensuring a modernized nuclear arsenal, strengthening our ballistic missile defense programs, advancing our space program, producing an American-built rocket engine to end U.S. dependence on Russia’s RD-180, and developing the technology and strategies necessary to deter any aggression, including cyber-attacks, against the United States or her interests.
America faces a litany of global threats and emerging dangers; it is more important than ever to have the most sophisticated and cost-effective defense programs that deliver the capabilities promised.
My focus as Chairman of the Immigration subcommittee will be to advance the core interests of the nation and its people. On no issue have special interests had a tighter grip than on the issue of immigration.
That is why I am renaming the subcommittee ‘Immigration and the National Interest,’ as a declaration to the American people that this subcommittee belongs to them. Senator Vitter, a strong voice for the national interest, will be serving as Republican Deputy Chairman. The financial and political elite have been controlling this debate for years; this subcommittee will give voice to those whose voice has been shut out: the voice of the dedicated immigration officers who have been blocked from doing their jobs; the voice of the working families whose wages have been reduced by years of record immigration; the voice of the American IT workers who are being replaced with guest workers; the voice of the parents who are worried about their schools and hospitals; and the voice of all Americans who believe we must have a lawful system of immigration they can be proud of and that puts their interests first. Continue reading this article
Americans should pay attention to the likely murder of special prosecutor Alberto Nisman in Argentina. There is more to the case than the investigation of a 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires that killed 85. The evidence leads to the involvement of Iran in jihadist attacks then and now.
The Buenos Aires terror attack in 1994 looked like a small preview of New York City in 2001.
Claudia Rosett appeared on Fox News on Thursday to explain the background of Nisman’s findings, with a warning about how Iran’s terror network extends to the United States today.
CLAUDIA ROSETT: One of his warnings was that they infiltrate using agents sent as taxi drivers, as students, as diplomats, as businessmen, and they operate under those covers for years, but they are ready when Iran decides to execute an attack. And the New York City Police Department former head of intelligence testified in 2013 to Congress that they have found Iranian diplomats conducting what looked like hostile reconnaissance surveillance on New York City on more than half a dozen occasions over the past 12 years, including subway tracks, train tracks at Grand Central, the Wall Street heliport.
In other words, Alberto Nisman’s warning was not only a case about a long ago bombing in Argentina; it was a warning about terror attacks in the making today.
Keep this goal in mind as the Obama administration bends over backwards to get a nuclear treaty deal with Iran, which is a dangerous appeasement of a tireless enemy. Recent satellite photos have been reported showing new Iranian missiles capable of sending a warhead “far beyond Europe” yet Obama thinks the mullahs can be trusted not to nuke us when they are able.
In Rosett’s detailed Forbes article on Tuesday, she quoted Nisman’s explanation of how Iranians were sent essentially as sleeper agents to Argentina, told to blend in as ordinary immigrants until a time when they were needed to “export the Islamic revolution.”
Beyond puzzling over the circumstances, is there any response the U.S. can make to the sudden death this past weekend of Argentine special prosecutor Alberto Nisman?
Nisman spent the past decade seeking justice for the victims of the 1994 terrorist bombing of a Buenos Aires Jewish community center, which killed 85 people and wounded many more. Nisman compiled a massive case, accusing Iran and its Lebanese terrorist affiliate, Hezbollah, of the attack. He indicted a member of Hezbollah and a number of former high-ranking Iranians officials. And he found himself increasingly at cross-purposes with the machinations of Argentina’s President Cristina Kirchner.
Last week, Nisman filed a criminal complaint almost 300 pages long, accusing Kirchner, her foreign minister Hector Timerman, and a number of others, of orchestrating a cover-up of Iran’s responsibility for the 1994 attack. A summary of the complaint, sent out last week by Nisman’s office, accused Kirchner of secretly cutting a deal with Iran to concoct a story that would exonerate Iran and its fugitives from the 1994 bombing, thus opening the way for Argentina to trade grain for Iranian oil, at the cost of “sacrificing a lengthy and legitimate quest for justice.”
Nisman was due to testify Monday to Argentina’s Congress about his allegations. He never made it. On the eve of his testimony, the 51-year-old Nisman was found dead in his Buenos Aires apartment, shot in the head.
Argentine officials swiftly declared that Nisman’s death looked like suicide. There’s plenty of skepticism about that. But with the case under Argentine jurisdiction, there may be little that Americans watching from afar can do. It is telling, perhaps, that even when Nisman was alive, the U.S. couldn’t do much on his behalf. In 2013, U.S. lawmakers invited Nisman to come to Washington, to testify about his findings at a House hearing on “Threat to the Homeland: Iran’s extending influence in the Western Hemishere.” Nisman wanted to go testify. But Argentina’s chief public prosecutor denied him permission, on grounds that it had nothing to do with the mission of the Argentine attorney general’s office.
At the hearing, panel chairman Rep. Jeff Duncan expressed his regret that Nisman could not come. Duncan noted that based on information that omitted Nisman’s findings, the State Department had recently reported that Iranian influence in Latin America and the Caribbean was “waning.” Duncan added: “In stark contrast to the State Department’s assessment, Nisman’s investigation revealed that Iran has infiltrated for decades large regions of Latin America through the establishment of clandestine intelligence stations and is ready to exploit its position to ‘execute terrorist attacks when the Iranian regime decides to do so.’ “
What America can do — and should do — is pay much closer heed to Nisman’s urgent warnings. For years, while laboring at an investigation that amassed more than a million pages of documents, he sounded the alarm over Iranian terror networks which he found extended way beyond Argentina — and in some cases all the way to the U.S. Continue reading this article
Now we learn that nearly a million kids got a free-to-them dinner or an after-school feeding last year.
Perish the thought that parents should be responsible for feeding the kiddies; the government can do that job so much better, particularly with the First Lady heading up the nutrition aspect of the nanny state.
In addition, what about the valuable tradition of families eating dinner together? A 2013 Gallup poll found that 53 percent of adults with children younger than 18 say their family eats dinner together at home six or seven nights a week. But the government wants to intrude further into family affairs.
Actual financial hardship has become less necessary to qualify for handouts because poor kids getting free food might experience damage to their self-esteem. So some schools hand out government meals to all kids regardless of need, as happened in Nashville last year:
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Many of the students at Kingsley Elementary School in a low-income neighborhood of Los Angeles eat breakfast and lunch provided by the school. For the nearly 100 enrolled in the after-school program, another meal is served: supper.
The nation’s second largest school district is doubling the number of students served dinner, with an eye toward eventually offering it at every school. It’s a growing trend: Nationwide, the number of students served dinner or an after-school snack soared to nearly 1 million last year.
“When kids are hungry, they don’t pay attention,” said Bennett Kayser, a member of the Los Angeles Unified School District board, which was announcing the expansion Thursday. “This is something that should have started years ago.”
Thirteen states and the District of Columbia began offering students dinner as part of a pilot program expanded to all states after the 2010 passage of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. Schools where at least half the students are low-income and qualify for free or reduced-price lunch are reimbursed for each supper by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, at a rate often significantly higher than the cost of the meal.
In the 2014 fiscal year, 104 million suppers were served to students, up from about 19 million in 2009. Participation is still lower than in the nation’s long-running breakfast and lunch programs, which serve more than 12 million and 31 million students, respectively.
The introduction of dinner to school routines is unique in that it could take the place of what many consider a near-sacred ritual: The family dinner. Continue reading this article
Republican leadership has an idea different than the one envisioned by the party’s voters. The elite Repubs want want Obama wants, namely a big amnesty and millions of excess workers to keep the business/donor faction happy. And the top Repubs are getting off to a fast start by bringing up a starter bill (H.R. 399) on Wednesday for Homeland Security Committee mark-up. They must hope the annoying voters will forget being fundamentally betrayed by the election in 2016.
That’s an unwise assumption about conservative voter behavior.
WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued the following statement today regarding immigration legislation that will be ‘marked-up’ tomorrow in the House Homeland Security Committee:
“Republicans won a historic midterm vote on the promise to take real action—not symbolic gestures—to end the immigration lawlessness. It is essential that any immigration measures moved by the Republican Congress actually do the job. Too often, Congress will pass anything on immigration except that which will actually work. Indeed, the repudiated Gang of Eight bill was touted as the ‘toughest border security [and] enforcement measures in U.S. history.’
Unfortunately, border legislation being marked-up on Wednesday in the House Homeland Security Committee again fails to include the measures necessary to fulfill its promises.
One of the most dramatic ways in which the President has undermined immigration enforcement is by ordering agents to release apprehended illegal border-crossers by the tens of thousands. Yet the pending legislation does nothing to end this endemic practice of catch-and-release, ensuring large amounts of illegal immigration will continue unabated.
The Chairman McCaul proposal does not include the following reforms needed to achieve a sound immigration system: it does not end catch-and-release; it does not require mandatory detention and return; it does not include worksite enforcement; it does not close dangerous asylum and national security loopholes; it does not cut-off access to federal welfare; and it does not require completion of the border fence. Surprisingly, it delays and weakens the longstanding unfulfilled statutory requirement for a biometric entry-exit visa tracking system.
If Congress learned anything from last year’s ongoing border disaster, it should be that border security cannot be achieved unless immigration agents are permitted to do their jobs and our laws are actually being enforced. A nation cannot control its borders if being caught violating those borders does not result in one’s swift return home.
As it stands now, Congress provides billions of dollars every year to the Department of Homeland Security for border security and immigration enforcement and yet DHS uses those resources to flout the laws Congress has passed, rather than to enforce them. Without ending catch-and-release, any additional funds for DHS will simply be used to facilitate the transfer of more illegal immigrants into U.S communities. Border security must be approached differently in a time when we have a President who makes up his own laws, and where illegal immigrants actually hope they will be apprehended so they can be released into an American city or town. We live in a new reality.
As such, it is essential that any border plan include some of the following measures, or that these measures be adopted first:
• Mandatory E-Verify
• Mandatory detention and repatriation for illegal entrants
• Expedited deportation for border-crossers
• Close asylum loopholes
• Bar access to welfare and tax credits
• Penalties for the Administration’s continued failure to implement the biometric entry-exit system as required by law
• Penalties for the Administration’s continued failure to build 700 miles of double-layer border fence
• Refusing visas to countries with high overstay rates or that will not repatriate their citizens
Americans have begged and pleaded for years for an end to the lawlessness. But the politicians have refused to listen. Time and again, proposals are offered with tough promises that the legislation does not fulfill. This time must be different. We cannot be satisfied with measures that create the appearance of doing something while changing little. We need reforms that actually work, protecting the jobs and communities of the American citizens we represent.”
[NOTE: To read Sen. Sessions’ recent immigration handbook on an effective immigration strategy for the 114th Congress, please click here.]
Jesse Watters from Fox’s O’Reilly show interviewed both the patriots and hijabbers.
Perhaps most revealing was the young koran fundamentalist who wants sharia law in the United States:
JESSE WATTERS: Seems to be a lot of turmoil in that part of the world, a lot of beheadings, stonings of women. Why is that tolerated in the Muslim world?
KORAN GUY: Because that’s what we believe. It says in the Koran that women shouldn’t be able to you know go out in public just you know wearing regular clothes.
JESSE: When women are allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, do you think that’s right?
KORAN: I just believe what the koran says because I’m a Muslim.
JESSE: So you believe in subjugating women because that’s what the koran says?
JESSE: Would you like sharia law in America?
KORAN: Yes. That would be nice.
Maybe the koran guy will head off for Syria to act on his beliefs. Let’s hope.
At any rate, he demonstrated what a huge mistake Muslim immigration has been. America should stop admitting Muslims now before it’s too late.
Fox journalists were specifically barred from going inside to hear the Islam speakers even though Watters paid for his ticket and got credentials. Local media were admitted for the first 20 minutes to shoot footage and then were forced to leave.
The totalitarian culture of Islam is not appropriate for nations of free people.
It’s disappointing to see the often conservative Washington Times report so erroneously about Muslim immigration to Germany, particularly that those newbies are needed for skilled jobs Germans allegedly won’t do.
BERLIN — Europe’s divisive debates over immigration and Islam may be putting sand in the gears of Europe’s economic engine.
Saying Germany needs skilled laborers to work in the factories and laboratories of its export-heavy economy, German corporate and industrial leaders are denouncing the string of anti-Islamic marches that have attracted growing crowds throughout the country in recent weeks.
“We distance ourselves from this movement and any xenophobic movement that damages Germany’s reputation,” said Alexander Wilhelm, deputy head of the Confederation of German Employers Associations, a national umbrella group.
“The PEGIDA movement is not representative of Germany, its people and its economy,” he said, using the German acronym for the Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West group that has organized the marches. [. . .]
This article is wrong on at least two counts — the real threat of Islam and the nature of the employment market.
PEGIDA stands for Patriotic Europeans against the Islamization of the West (Patriotische Europäer gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes). Started by Lutz Bachmann in Dresden, PEGIDA’s Monday night rallies grew from 350 participants last October 20 to 25,000 on January 12. Officials canceled the march on January 19 because of threatening Muslims, but Bachmann promised to resume next week.
Below, growing PEGIDA rallies against the Islamization of Europe show that many of the German people don’t want Muslim diversity.
Following is an upbeat video segment from Deutsche Welle about young Spaniards moving to Germany to pursue professional careers. Spain is moving very slowly out of recession, but still has a jobless rate of 23 percent. Borderless Europe means that job seekers can go anywhere within the EU for employment, so Germany has plenty of available workers from the continent.
In addition, the idea that Muslims have extra-special work skills is a new one on me. They do not have a reputation for STEM expertise.
Finally, Germany is like all other first-world economies that are turning to robots, computers and automation to reduce its need for human workers. So the complaints of business are not based on genuine need, just the desire for cheaper workers.
BERLIN — Right-wing protesters marching against immigration and the so-called Islamicization of Germany may soon face a new foe: the rise of the machines.
With low unemployment and a shrinking workforce, the economic engine of Europe continues to endeavor to reinvent itself as a nation of immigrants, even as the demise of the welfare state and fear of multiculturalism have brought tens of thousands of protesters to the streets.
But recent reports suggest that robots, not immigrants, may pose the greatest threat to German workers — though the European Union has placed a $4 billion bet that robots will create rather than eliminate jobs.
The new wave of automation will hit white-collar workers hardest, according to Jeremy Bowles, a researcher at the Brussels-based Bruegel Institute.
“What’s fundamentally different is that (these advances) have the ability to affect a broader set of workers,” Bowles said, comparing the next generation of computerization to the first wave of robots that hit assembly line jobs in the 1980s.
The impact of these innovations will vary across Europe, Bowles argues. But in Germany, as in the U.S., robots may soon take as many as half the existing jobs, according to the Bruegel Institute’s analysis of the labor market. Continue reading this article
Hostile Muslims seem to enjoy poking Americans in the eye, probably because they think they can. Washington has increased Muslim immigration to this country, which may incite even worse behavior among the those who see a friend in the White House. They never miss an opportunity to insult treasured American institutions, like free speech and freedom of religion, the latter which benefits them because Islam is treated as a faith rather than a totalitarian political system.
Now obnoxious Muslims are back, complaining about free speech that’s critical of their backward system. Just a week after many of the staff of Charlie Hebdo were slaughtered by jihadists in Paris, an Islam group rented a hall owned by the public schools in Garland, Texas, to “Stand with the Prophet” against America.
Interestingly, the Free Beacon reported that their journalist and others were prevented from entering the evening forum of Muslim speakers: ‘Free Beacon’ Banned From Stand with the Prophet Event. Some reporters were allowed to stay for only 20 minutes, then were made to leave. Free expression, Muslim style!
GARLAND, Texas — Pamela Geller told a crowd of nearly one thousand protestors that “we’re living in an age where evil is good, and good is evil.” Her remarks came during a free speech rally staged to protest the “Follow the Prophet” assembly underway in a Garland Independent School District convention center.
She cautioned the audience to be careful with the mainstream media covering the event and the protest. “This is theater,” Geller said, “and the media is the director. They’re coming here to film a narrative. They’re coming here to make you look bad.”
Geller encouraged the group to speak their mind but to do so in a way that brought credit to the movement. “Never give them what they’re looking for,” she explained. “They want you to say something wrong. They want you to have a bad sign. Because that becomes the front page.” Continue reading this article
A couple of recent surveys reveal deep unease among the voters about White House competence to run the nation. While Obama frequently touts an improving economy, the citizens apparently haven’t gotten the memo, and nearly two-thirds said it still feels like recession to them, according to a January Fox News poll:
The poll reveals that a 64-percent majority of voters says it still feels like the country is in a recession. The good news is that’s far less than the 74 percent who felt that way a year ago, and the 86 percent who said that in 2010.
Worse, a recent Pew poll, shown at right, found that the economy — often the top concern — ranked second after terrorism. The basic job of government is to protect the people, but Obama’s indifference to national security must be shocking to many for terror to be their #1 priority for 2015.
Last summer, the surge of Central American children across the Rio Grande showed that America’s southern border is a sieve. And if kids can get in with no problem, so can Allah’s murderers. Voters may wonder: How many Muslim sleeper cells are waiting to strike? And why does Washington continue to admit potential enemies (Muslims) as immigrants?
As views of the economy improve and terrorist threats persist, the public’s policy priorities have changed: For the first time in five years, as many Americans cite defending the U.S. against terrorism (76%) as a top policy priority as say that about strengthening the nation’s economy (75%).
Since Barack Obama began his second term in January 2013, the economy has declined 11 points as a top priority, and improving the job situation has fallen 12 points (from 79% to 67%).
There has been little change over the past two years in the number saying that defending against terrorism should be a top priority; in fact, this has consistently been among the public’s leading policy goals since 2002. But it has moved to the top of the priorities list as the economy and jobs have fallen.
The Pew Research Center’s annual policy priorities survey, conducted Jan. 7-11 among 1,504 adults, also finds that the goal of strengthening the military has increased in importance. Currently, 52% say strengthening the military should be a top policy priority for the president and Congress this year, up from 41% in January 2013.
Most of the reports we have heard about the jihadists in Europe have described small groups with a few members, but the conversation between JihadWatch’s Robert Spencer and SunTV’s Ezra Levant considers how the substantially increased numbers of hostiles mean a higher level of danger.
EZRA LEVANT: We know that thousands of European Muslims have gone to fight with the Islamic State terrorists in Iraq and Syria. Do you thinks it’s credible there are groups 20-30 as these reports say, a hundred terrorists in a single cell ready to attack in Europe? Do you think that’s credible?
ROBERT SPENCER: Yeah, absolutely. There’s not reason why not. Even European authorities are acknowledging today that there are between 2,000 and 5,000 what they call radicalized Muslim extremists, that is Muslims that are ready to wage jihad and wage it in Europe and they are in Europe now, and so could a hundred of them get together to plan a large-scale attack? There’s absolutely no reason why not. . .
LEVANT: In Canada some years ago we had the Toronto 18, so that was 18 Muslim extremists collaborating, training, working on their plans. The plans were intercepted but still, if 18 people would work together in Canada, which has a smaller Muslim population, I guess it is not unthinkable that you would have, but these terror cells reportedly are up to a hundred people. In my mind, I think of the damage done by two or three people working in concert in Paris last week. A hundred people, I mean that’s like a military battalion, that would be enough to take over a police station, that would be enough to take over a military base, that would certainly be enough to slaughter any Jewish synagogue or university, maybe even enough to get into the French parliament.
SPENCER: Yeah, Ezra, look, all these things are possibilities. Saying it’s a military battalion, I think that’s very well put because they do consider themselves to be in a war.
The terrorist arrests in Belgium on Thursday turned up police uniforms as well as the expected explosives and firearms. A Reuters report (Dozens held across Europe in Islamist suspect sweeps) quoted the prosecutor’s spokesman who explained, “This group was on the point of carrying out terrorist attacks aiming to kill police officers in the streets and in police stations.”
Below, Belgian police arrested hostile Muslims in the city of Verviers.
So the bad guys have bigger plans for Europe and elsewhere. The Toronto 18, mentioned by Ezra Levant, didn’t get much press in the US, but the group had a very ambitious plot in 2006 to invade Canada’s Parliament building and behead the Prime Minister, among other violence. In addition, some of the jihadists today have gotten military training in Syria and are therefore far more dangerous than the standard Allah gangsters of earlier plots. At any rate, continuing Muslim immigration is madness.
A country that is serious about national security needs a fortified border, and the Saudis demonstrate that commitment by constructing a multi-layered high-tech model to keep out their enemies from ISIS. Rush Limbaugh mentioned the project during his program on Thursday:
. . . Saudi Arabia is building a 600-mile great wall. Saudi Arabia is building a massive fence 600 miles long. It’s a combined fence and ditch. Its purpose is to separate Saudi Arabia from Iraq to the north. Most of the area on the Iraqi side of the border of Saudi Arabia is now controlled by ISIS, or ISIL. But they’re not just building a 600-mile fence. And, by the way, why are they building the fence? They’re building the fence to keep ISIS out. And you know why? Because fences work. It’s not just a fence, folks. This is a five-layered fence, and it has ditches.
This is a massive construction project. It has berms, it has razor wire, thermal sensors, radar, and helicopters. It is a full protection security system, 500 miles of that. Stop and think for a moment a 500-mile, five-layered fence. This is not just a bunch of stakes in the ground with some barbed wire running. There are guard towers every so many feet, miles, whatever, the trenches are deep. They are all packed with sensors to detect anybody trying to cross. And if you get caught you’re gonna be beheaded. They don’t mess around.
Meissner said that controlling the border is going to be a long-term, step-by-step process. “We’ve always said this would be a three- to five-year effort to build up to what would be needed,” she said.
Even so, any Washington discussion of illegal immigration these days always includes an earnest declaration that America’s borders must be secured for sure, although never with specifics of when.
Below, a diagram of the features of the Saudi border fortifications.
Meanwhile, much of America’s border has a fence like the unserious one below.
The Saudi royal family are building a 600-mile barrier to fortify the northern frontier of their kingdom.
The fence and ditch, punctuated with radar surveillance towers, command centres and guard posts, aims to protect the Saudis’ oil-rich territory from invasion by the Islamic State insurgency.
Last week a suicide bombing and gun attack which killed two Saudi border guards and their commanding officer was styled by one analyst as the Islamic State’s first attack on the kingdom.
No group claimed responsibility for the assault in a remote desert area, but it happened just next to Iraq’s Anbar province where Islamic State militants are fighting Iraqi army forces.
Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al-Saud inaugurated the first phase of the border security project in September, soon after Islamic State’s Sunni insurgency swept across Iraq.
The multi-layered barrier, which will eventually stretch across the Saudi-Iraq border from Jordan to Kuwait, includes 78 monitoring towers, eight command centres, 10 mobile surveillance vehicles, 32 rapid-response centres, and three rapid intervention squads, reports Janes.com. Continue reading this article
What does it cost to start a race war? Is $33 million in one year enough? Perhaps not quite, judging from George Soros’ efforts to create anger among black Americans against the authorities. Plenty of chaos happened, certainly, and Ferguson the town will probably not recover from the arson and riots it suffered for decades, if ever.
There may well may be a few bad cops out there causing trouble — there are certainly bad priests and teachers — but if jobs were available, allowing hope for the future, then the Soros millions wouldn’t cause unrest.
The story about Soros explains a lot, with the money thrown willy-nilly at leftist groups to create anti-cop protests that don’t make sense, given the economic conditions. In my opinion, there is a lot of displaced anger among blacks who have been deeply hurt by the Obama economy, but cannot bring themselves to say so directly. So there have been eruptions like Ferguson and the fury about Trayvon, but no protests about the lack of jobs. Obama gets a pass, even now.
Liberal billionaire gave at least $33 million in one year to groups that emboldened activists
There’s a solitary man at the financial center of the Ferguson protest movement. No, it’s not victim Michael Brown or Officer Darren Wilson. It’s not even the Rev. Al Sharpton, despite his ubiquitous campaign on TV and the streets.
Rather, it’s liberal billionaire George Soros, who has built a business empire that dominates across the ocean in Europe while forging a political machine powered by nonprofit foundations that impacts American politics and policy, not unlike what he did with MoveOn.org.
Mr. Soros spurred the Ferguson protest movement through years of funding and mobilizing groups across the U.S., according to interviews with key players and financial records reviewed by The Washington Times.
In all, Mr. Soros gave at least $33 million in one year to support already-established groups that emboldened the grass-roots, on-the-ground activists in Ferguson, according to the most recent tax filings of his nonprofit Open Society Foundations.
The financial tether from Mr. Soros to the activist groups gave rise to a combustible protest movement that transformed a one-day criminal event in Missouri into a 24-hour-a-day national cause celebre.
“Our DNA includes a belief that having people participate in government is indispensable to living in a more just, inclusive, democratic society,” said Kenneth Zimmerman, director of Mr. Soros’ Open Society Foundations’ U.S. programs, in an interview with The Washington Times. “Helping groups combine policy, research [and] data collection with community organizing feels very much the way our society becomes more accountable.”
No strings attached Mr. Zimmerman said OSF has been giving to these types of groups since its inception in the early ’90s, and that, although groups involved in the protests have been recipients of Mr. Soros’ grants, they were in no way directed to protest at the behest of Open Society.
“The incidents, whether in Staten Island, Cleveland or Ferguson, were spontaneous protests — we don’t have the ability to control or dictate what others say or choose to say,” Mr. Zimmerman said. “But these circumstances focused people’s attention — and it became increasingly evident to the social justice groups involved that what a particular incident like Ferguson represents is a lack of accountability and a lack of democratic participation.”
Soros-sponsored organizations helped mobilize protests in Ferguson, building grass-roots coalitions on the ground backed by a nationwide online and social media campaign.
Other Soros-funded groups made it their job to remotely monitor and exploit anything related to the incident that they could portray as a conservative misstep, and to develop academic research and editorials to disseminate to the news media to keep the story alive. Continue reading this article
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.