In its crusade to protect and assist illegal immigrants, the Obama administration has accused an American company of discrimination for requiring employees to furnish proof that they are eligible to work legally in the United States.
You know the nation is in trouble when a U.S. business gets investigated by its own government for following the law. The case involves a Nebraska meat packing company that demanded workers to furnish proof of immigration status for the federal employment eligibility verification process. The Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) went after the company, accusing it of engaging in employment discrimination.
In particular the DOJ’s Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices objected to non-U.S. citizens being “targeted” because of their citizenship status. “The department’s investigation found that the company required non-U.S. citizens, but not similarly-situated U.S. citizens, to present specific documentary proof of their immigration status to verify their employment eligibility,” the DOJ claims. This could constitute a violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the feds assert, because its anti-discrimination provision prohibits employers from making documentary demands based on citizenship or national origin when verifying an employee’s authorization to work.
With the feds breathing down its neck the business, Nebraska Beef Ltd, agreed to pay Uncle Sam a $200,000 civil penalty and establish an uncapped back pay fund to compensate individuals who lost wages because they couldn’t prove they are in the county legally. Additionally, the business will undergo “compliance monitoring,” which means big brother will be watching very closely. The head of the DOJ’s civil rights division explains that the agency is on a mission to eliminate “unnecessary and discriminatory barriers to employment” so workers can support their families and contribute to the U.S. economy.
This case is part of a broader effort by the Obama administration to helps illegal aliens in the U.S. Besides shielding tens of millions from deportation via an executive amnesty order, the president has also expanded the DOJ to help carry out part of this mission. It’s why the agency’s civil rights division has grown immensely under Obama. A few years ago Judicial Watch reported that the DOJ’s civil rights division launched a secret group to monitor laws passed by states and local municipalities to control illegal immigration. Because the measures are viewed as discriminatory and anti-immigrant by the administration, the DOJ has spent huge sums of taxpayer dollars to track them and legally challenge them as it did in Arizona.
The federal tentacles have reached deeply into the workplace. A few years ago the DOJ civil rights division, under the leadership of renowned illegal alien advocate Thomas Perez, launched a plan to eliminate tests that supposedly discriminate against minorities in the workplace. The administration defines them as having a “disparate impact,” a racial discrimination created by the various written exams. The tests disproportionately screen out people of a particular race, even though they “present the appearance of objective, merit-based selection,” according to the Obama DOJ.
Last year a federal auditdisclosed that the Obama administration was letting businesses that hire undocumented workers off the hook by drastically reducing fines and enforcement. During a three-year period the administration slashed by 40% the amount of fines collected from employers caught with illegal immigrants on their payroll, according to the probe which was conducted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General. This inconsistent implementation hinders the government’s mission to prevent or deter employers from violating immigration laws, the DHS watchdog wrote in its report. Now the DOJ is taking it a step further by going after employers that try to ensure their workers are in the U.S. legally.
In 1952 when I was just a toddler someone gave me a teddy bear. Mind you, this was not an ordinary teddy bear, it was a genuine Smokey the Bear teddy bear. In the earlier 1950’s Smokey was the iconic spokesbear for the U.S. Forestry Service. He had a rather snappy song that was always ended with a growling voice that said, “Only you can prevent forest fires.” My Smokey came with a Ranger hat, a pair of blue jeans and a belt whose buckle read “Smokey”.
Smokey and I became the best of friends. Every night after I said my prayers Mom would tuck Smokey and myself into bed. I am a little bit embarrassed to admit that I slept with my comforting Smokey until I was nine years old. (Also, in similar nerd fashion I rode my bike to school until my Junior year in High School.)
Recently, another disturbing video surfaced on YouTube. (It has since been taken down.) The video showed a two year old Muslim toddler with a large knife in the act of beheading his teddy bear. Off screen an adult jihadi coaches him in the proper way of beheading. When the toddler finally severs the bear’s head he yells out what now has become a blood curdling war cry “Allahu Akbar”. These demented, warped kids are collectively known
as the “Cubs of the Caliphate.”
What kind of idiotic parent allows a two year old to handle a wickedly sharp 10 inch blade. This is worse than running with the proverbial scissors in your hands. What could possibly go wrong with your toddler using a razor sharp knife ?
This is proof that Muslim parents don’t love their children in the way most Western parents do. From a very early age Muslim children are deliberately taught to be brutal and cruel by their parents. They are dedicated to be living sacrifices and slaves to the monster god, Allah. The poor kids don’t have a chance of being normal, well adjusted children. The psychopathology of Muslim families is multi-generational. Indeed, in many cases this abnormality can be traced back to the Ultimate Muslim Psychopath, Mohammed.
Muslim children are deliberately raised to be sadists. The child that starts by beheading dolls and teddy bears will then move on to beheading puppies, before he graduates to beheading Jews, Christians and, yes, even Muslim apostates. Most of these children will be killed in some future Jihad deluded by some Imam that savagery will get their ticket punched to Islamic Paradise, also known as the Big Brothel in the Sky.
Appearing on his Justice or Else! Tour at the Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal church in Washington DC, Farrakhan said, "Death is sweeter than watching us slaughter each other to the joy of a 400 year old enemy. Death is sweet. The Quran teaches persecution is worse than slaughter."
"10,000 in the midst of the million … 10,000 fearless men who say death is sweeter than continued life under tyranny," he added.
In appealing to the Koran, Farrakhan said, "Retaliation is a prescription from God to calm the breasts of those whose children have been slain. So if the federal government will not intercede in our affairs, then we must rise up and kill those who kill us. Stalk them and kill them and let them feel the pain of death that we are feeling."
"So if the federal government will not intercede in our affairs, then we must rise up and kill those who kill us," he said. "Stalk them and kill them and let them feel the pain of death that we are feeling."
OK, so who are those that are killing "us," Mr. Farrakhan? Who is enslaving you, with your nice expensive suits and your entourage of body guards? Who is oppressing you Mr. Farrakhan that your free speech, though criminal, is being stifled? No one!
However, I've got an idea. Since the federal government won't do their duty and it seems that many of the states won't do their duty to bring justice upon your head for inciting an insurrection, perhaps it's time that the true constitutional troops, the militia (ie. The People) bring you to justice.
Perhaps I need to make every person who God created with light skin aware of your devilish intent and encourage them to not only arm themselves with enough ammunition to kill all those who seek their deaths, but to also arm them with the Word of God for those who are willing to listen to reason and to Truth.
Whites… you have been warned. Blacks… you have been warned. You are both made in the image of God and if you will not bow to Him in this life, then you will surely face His judgment in the next. If there is a "race war" coming, it will be because people listen to the likes of racist Louis Farrakhan, not because people listened to the instruction from the Word of God.
Do politics come before economics, or economics before politics? The question is probably not susceptible to a definitive answer, but this doesn’t prevent us from wondering.
Recently, I saw Tunisian olive oil on the shelves of my local supermarket in France for the first time in more than ten years. It was attractively presented, of excellent quantity, and cheap. To my chagrin, it sold out rapidly.
The Tunisian product that I buy frequently in the supermarket is harissa, the highly spiced relish that you stir into your couscous. I noticed recently that a tube of it was now astonishingly cheap, almost the cheapest thing to buy in the whole supermarket, the same price as a single lime.
The economic reason for the sudden appearance of Tunisian olive oil and the cheapness of the harissa is no doubt the devaluation of the Tunisian dinar, by about 33 percent in a year. And the cause of this? Most probably the two terrorist attacks on tourists, the first in a museum, and the second on a beach, in which 60 people were killed. Not surprisingly, the tourist industry, the source of a large proportion of Tunisia’s foreign currency revenue, has been severely affected: arrivals from France, for example (the nationality of the largest number), are down by 60 percent.
In other words, I had my Tunisian olive oil and cheap harissa from the supermarket thanks to the Islamic extremists who killed 60 tourists so brutally. This is a case of a hurricane causing the flap of a butterfly’s wing.
By September 17, 2015, the United States Senate must vote on a "resolution of disapproval" of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the nuclear arrangement with Iran. It is appropriate that the senators discuss whether the agreement is, as the Obama administration argues, the best available strategy to block Iran from acquiring nuclear weapon capability. It is not appropriate for the members of the Obama administration to attack the critics of the agreement with suggestions of their double loyalty and to question their motivation.
The senators should discuss and vote accordingly not only on the details of the nuclear agreement but also on appraisal of the negative consequences of Iran's behavior as a result of the deal. The confident Iranian regime has already begun to illustrate that behavior by its increased funding of terrorist organizations, dedicated to the destruction of the State of Israel. The U.S. State Department in a 2014 report stated that Iran continues to support terrorist groups around the world. As a result of the nuclear deal, the possibility of enhanced Iranian sponsored belligerence will be escalated. It will bring less, not more security to the Middle East.
No one can doubt that the agreement is both complex and controversial in its immediate and future effects. It is arguable that the agreement does not enhance international security or end or reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. We know that Iran will be allowed to enrich uranium and to develop advanced centrifuges. It is highly likely that the agreement, as Joseph Lieberman argued, ultimately allows Iran to become a nuclear weapon state, and indeed legitimizes Iran's possession of nuclear weapon capability.
The history of Nazi Germany has shown that arms agreements are easy to break and always difficult to enforce. Uncertainty reigns not only on this issue, but also on the question of international inspection of Iranian sites. The 24-day notice requirement for inspection of sites provides the opportunity for cheating, at which Iran has proved it is a master. This particular issue seems to have turned into farce with the revelation of a secret agreement by which Iran is allowed to use its own experts to inspect a controversial nuclear site. It is imperative that the senators demand that contents of all side agreements between Iran and the IAEA be revealed.
What are certain are the benefits that Iran will obtain from the agreement, and policy consequences that will follow. Paraphrasing the words of Winston Churchill about the Munich Agreement of 1938, Iran, instead of snatching all the victuals from the table, has been content to have them served to it course by course.
The most important benefit, to be obtained in the near future, is the end of the embargoes on conventional arms and ballistic missiles, and the removal of international sanctions, which will allow Iran to recover $150 billion held in overseas accounts.
That money will be used for different positive purposes, but it will also be used for negative ones. This is already the case, with the Iranian regime providing financial assistance for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) movement, the second strongest armed movement that operates in the Gaza Strip – though its headquarters are in Damascus, which is almost entirely dependent on Iranian funding.
PIJ is a more extreme group than Hamas, dedicated to the destruction of Israel by violent means. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, it approaches the Arab-Israeli conflict as an ideological war, not as a territorial dispute. It is recognized as a terrorist group by a number of countries including the United States, the U.K., and the EU.
Iran has shown its intentions and preferences. In the past, Iran gave Hamas more than $1 billion, as well as providing military support and training, but reduced its support when Hamas did not get involved in the fighting in Syria. It is indicative that Iran is not funding, or has reduced its funding for, the political wing of Hamas, which has made overtures to Saudi Arabia, Iran's rival. Instead, it is funding Hamas's military win and has given much more to PIJ.
For a time Iran stopped its support for the jihadists because they had not adopted a clear position in support of Iran's involvement in Yemen. Islamic Jihad had supported the Assad regime in Syria but took a neutral position regarding Yemen. The issue was related to the religious and geo-political rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which had begun an operation, called Storm Resolve, against the Shiite rebels in Yemen. PIJ, like its rival Hamas, is a Sunni movement, so, not surprisingly, it would not necessarily agree with the Shiite Iran on all issues
However, Iran has resumed its funding and operation support for PIJ. To make the issue more complex, Iran has also been funding a smaller group, called as-Sabirin (the patient ones), a breakaway group from PIJ and led by a former PIJ military operative.
Iran has been active in supporting recent attacks on Israel. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards have been responsible for the rocket fire, not simply mortar shells, on August 20, 2015 on northern Israel, the Upper Galilee, and the Golan Heights from Syria. The attacks were orchestrated by the Palestinian division of the Iranian al-Quds Force, led by Saeed Izadhi and carried out by PIJ. Iran is making the Golan Heights a battleground.
In an earlier attack, PIJ fired rockets at southern Israel from the Gaza Strip, landing in the Eshkol Regional Council. In addition, four members of PIJ were arrested for plotting to attack Jewish worshipers visiting Joseph's tomb in Nablus.
As a result of the benefits Iran gets from the nuclear deal, and the money available to fund its proxies, the likelihood is of more Iranian-funded attacks on Israel, which has already had the first taste of a bitter cup.
The nuclear deal will lead to danger for Israel. With the withdrawal of sanctions in the near future, Iran will continue to escalate its belligerence and its funding and support of terrorist activities. No one can say that the U.S. senators have not been forewarned about the danger ahead.
Donald Trump has figured out that, in this day and age, he can speak directly to the American people unfiltered through the media via Twitter. It's like the fireside chats of the 21st Century. Over four million people follow Trump on Twitter. He makes statements on the news of the moment all day long. His own statements - quick, short and unfiltered.
Most other candidates seem to have a team handling their twitter and facebook accounts, so those pages seem like a constant stream of PR. Trump is different.
This may be the first election in a long time, where we actually know who we're voting for. We're not voting for an image that represents certain carefully crafted ideas and values - we're electing, or not electing, the man.
Chattanooga. Paris. Garland, Texas. Copenhagen. New York City. Ottawa. Moore, Oklahoma. What do these wildly diverse places have in common? They’re all Western cities that have suffered terror attacks at the hands of ISIS supporters in the past year. Since the start of 2015 alone we have had dozens of American citizens arrested for plotting terror and supporting ISIS (this list from late May has already increased substantially). Practically every week comes a new round of homegrown jihadists arrested or some new plot broken up—or not broken up, as we saw most recently in Chattanooga. Now, if you’re more interested in what the Kardashians are up to than what’s going on in the world, I know this information might shock you. But if you’ve been watching this show over the past few months and have read my book “ISIS Exposed” you know that we have an epidemic in this country right now of U.S. citizens answering the call of ISIS–they’re going overseas to join the caliphate or just staying put and plotting attacks against the homeland. Folks, we’re up against a rapidly growing threat. And right now I want to give you some examples of the latest ISIS activity on U.S. soil. Bear in mind, all of these incidents happened in the span of one month: from July 30th to August 30th, 2015:
Virginia: 17-year-old Ali Shukri Amin was sentenced to over 11 years in prison for running pro-ISIS Twitter accounts.
Mississippi: 19-year-old Jaelyn Young and her 22-year-old her fiancé, Muhammad Dakhlalla, were arrested for allegedly planning to travel to Syria to join the Islamic State.
Florida: 23-year-old Harlem Suarez was arrested for allegedly plotting to detonate a bomb on a Florida beach and murder police inside their homes.
New Jersey: 20-year-old Nader Sadeh and associates were arrested for allegedly attempting to build a small army of ISIS terrorists in New Jersey and New York. We recently saw a jihadi in Spain arrested for the same kind of plan. Remember the carnage wrought by a similarly small army of terrorists in Mumbai, India back in November 2008?
Paris: Although the attempted terror attack by an ISIS supporter on a Paris-bound train on August 21st did not take place in the United States, three American citizens—including two U.S. service members—subdued the jihadi and foiled what would have undoubtedly been a horrific attack.
These cases are just the tip of the iceberg. FBI Director James Comey has said that there are currently investigations ongoing into ISIS-related activity in all 50 U.S. states. And we know that at least 200 U.S. citizens have traveled overseas to join ISIS. One day, if they don’t get killed waging jihad over there, these U.S. passport holders will return home. And then what happens? This is not alarmism, scare tactics or sensationalism: it’s reality. It’s also a heavy message and unsettling, I know. But for your kids and grandkids’ sake, I think you’d rather know than not know. Because if we don’t face it soon we are going to get burnt badly…we can’t say we weren’t warned.
Erdogan blames the EU for the refugee crisis. In doing so, he is exhibiting the universal attitude of Muslims everywhere to blame the infidel for whatever happens and demand the infidels pay for and otherwise sacrifice for Muslims whenever possible. Muslims states, including Turkey, will do little if anything even though Muslims are responsible for the entire mess themselves. If it puts pressure on Europe and speeds up Islamization, what are a few thousand lives? Did the Arab states take in the "Palestinian" refugees? No, the US and EU have been paying for their upkeep for two or three generations now. Here we go again - only on a much larger scale.
European leaders were today accused of turning the Mediterranean into a 'cemetery for refugees' after the bodies of two young Syrian boys washed up on a Turkish beach.
Turkey's president Tayyip Erdogan said EU countries 'shared the sin for every refugee who loses their life' trying to escape the Middle East for Europe.
Mr Erdogan's intervention came as splits emerged over an emergency Brussels plan to relocate 160,000 refugees around the Continent in a bid to ease the burden on Germany and a handful of other countries.
Mr Erdogan, the Turkish president, today insisted Europe had to act to save refugees dying.
He said: 'European countries, which have turned the Mediterranean, the cradle of the world's oldest civilisations, into a cemetery for refugees, shares the sin for every refugee who loses their life.'
ISIS Issues Dhimma Contract For Christians To Sign, Orders Them To Pay Jizyah
On September 3, 2015, the media office of the Damascus province of the Islamic State (ISIS) published a photo report showing dozens of Christians from Al-Qaryaten city signing a Dhimma contract, requiring each of them to pay the jizya poll tax, abide by Islamic rules and refrain from certain activities. In return, under the 11-article contract, which was published on the leading ISIS-affiliated jihadi forum Shumoukh Al-Islam, ISIS will protect them and their property, and they will neither be forced to convert nor harmed. The contract adds that anyone violating any of the articles will be treated as a combatant.
The following are the contract's 11 articles:
1. Christians may not build churches, monasteries, or hermitages in the city or in the surrounding areas.
2. They may not show the cross or any of their books in the Muslims' streets or markets, and may not use amplifiers when worshiping or during prayer.
3. They may not make Muslims hear the reciting of their books or the sounds of church bells, which must be rung only inside their churches.
4. They may not carry out any act of aggression against ISIS, such as giving refuge to spies and wanted men. If they come to know of any plot against Muslims, they must report it.
5. They must not perform religious rituals in public.
6. They must respect Muslims and not criticize their religion.
7. Wealthy Christians must pay an annual jizya of four gold dinars; middle-class Christians must pay two gold dinars, and the poor must pay one. Christians must disclose their income, and may split the jizya into two payments.
8. They may not own guns.
9. They may not engage in commercial activity involving pigs or alcohol with Muslims or in Muslim markets, and may not drink alcohol in public.
10. They may maintain their own cemeteries.
11. They must abide by ISIS dress code and commerce guidelines.
Looking beyond strategy at the still-hidden legal flaws in Iran deal
The new Iran agreement has already been widely criticized on military or strategic grounds. For the most part, these critiques have been right on the mark. After all, there is little doubt that the proposed pact — allegedly designed to prevent Iranian nuclearization — would effectively render Iranian nuclearization a fait accompli.
But there are also major legal or jurisprudential liabilities of the agreement, still-hidden flaws that have yet to be meaningfully understood, or even mentioned. Here, the most ominous risks have to do with permitting Iran to enrich uranium after 15 years. These plainly ironic allowances contradict the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), especially those pertinent treaty portions that obligate Iran, as well as all other non-nuclear member states, to remain non-nuclear in perpetuity.
More precisely, the NPT mandates a compliant period of "indefinite duration."
There is more. International law is part of the law of the United States. It follows, according to Article Six of the U.S. Constitution — the so-called "Supremacy Clause" — that any U.S. entry into the new Iran agreement must substantially violate American law, specifically, the "supreme law of the land." The United States, of course, is an original nuclear-weapon state party to the NPT.
A second legal contradiction concerns the Obama administration's expressed unwillingness to abide by the 1948 Genocide Convention. More particularly, the American president refused to base this country's negotiations with Iran upon a contingent expectation that Tehran's leadership abrogate genocidal statements. These conspicuous declarations regarding Israel, a country smaller than America's Lake Michigan, are plainly impermissible. Incontestably, they reveal a thoroughly egregious violation of both international and national law.
Although not generally known, the Genocide Convention criminalizes not only genocide per se, but also "conspiracy to commit genocide," and "direct and public incitement to commit genocide."
Does the United States have any discernible "contractual" obligation to enforce such major treaty prohibitions in its nuclear diplomacy with Iran? Although the language of the Genocide Convention does not explicitly require any such precise enforcement, all treaties are premised upon the "peremptory" doctrine of pacta sunt servanda (Latin for "agreements must be honored"). Further, a U.S. obligation is clearly deducible from Article V of the convention, which calls for international cooperation in providing "effective penalties" for those who have engaged in "incitement to commit genocide," and also from Article VIII, which requires "any contracting party" to bring all unlawful behavior before "competent organs of the United Nations."
Once again, there exists a binding intersection of U.S. constitutional law and international law. Because of the Supremacy Clause, and assorted Supreme Court decisions, especially the Paquete Habana (1900), this country's open failure to enforce anti-genocide norms in its nuclear dealings with Iran constitutes an unassailably serious violation of U.S. law. On purely moral grounds, moreover, this indisputable failure is similarly insidious.
A third problem with the new Iran agreement is less a matter of evident jurisprudential contradictions than of "naive legalism," that is, of automatically assuming that realistic compliance is built into the codifying language. Here, long-standing legal philosophy has recognizable pride of place, and it is appropriate to recall the cautionary words of Thomas Hobbes, a seminal thinker whose Leviathan was already well-known to Thomas Jefferson, and was thereby important to drafting America's Declaration of Independence: "And Covenants, without the Sword, are but Words," cautioned the 17th-century English thinker, "and of no strength to secure a man at all."
To be sure, the new "Covenant" with Iran is "but Words." It can never expectedly override Tehran's irremediable preference for creating military nuclear options. Plausibly, over time, Iran's cadre of international lawyers will embark, more or less openly, on a calculated strategy of unilateral "treaty" termination. Pursuant to the governing "treaty on treaties," the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, these Iranian advocates will then settle upon a suitable number of "permissible exceptions" to pacta sunt servanda.
At that time, these allegedly lawful exceptions will likely include the international law doctrine of rebus sic stantibus ("so long as conditions remain the same"), an exculpatory principle now stating that core obligations of the nuclear agreement can be terminated whenever a fundamental change occurs in certain circumstances that had existed when the agreement was first executed.
Will such a qualified change in circumstances actually have taken place? Probably not. But that reality will not constrain the Iranian lawyers.
Looking ahead, there are other strategies of unilateral termination that Iran could and most likely would invoke. One of these conveniently malleable grounds, identified at Article 48 of the Vienna Convention, affirms that "A State may invoke an error ... as invalidating its consent." Another, codified at Article 52, indicates that any formal international agreement is void "if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force." Still another predictable ground for future Iranian legal manipulation can be found at Article 53, the so-called "jus cogens" or peremptory norm section of the Vienna Convention. This all-too-relevant article states that "A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law." In this case, Iran could claim, several years hence, that the agreement had improperly impaired its sovereignty — incontestably, a peremptory norm of general international law — and is, therefore, not legally binding.
On its face, perhaps, any such expressed Iranian rationale would appear to contradict elementary logic. After all, Iran would already have acknowledged this corrosive effect at the time of its initial agreement. Nonetheless, a usable case could conceivably be fashioned by Iran that would combine this particular rationale for abrogation with an argument of rebus sic stantibus — that is, that the foreseeable circumstances that had existed originally, no longer exist.
Alternatively, at least in the closing years of this agreement, Iran could decide that it would be better to remain in the pact, at least in principle, but to simultaneously quit the NPT. The rationale of any such contrary strategy would be that the newer pact will allow full nuclearization after the 15-year duration, while the NPT could never make such an allowance. Per Article X of the NPT, Iran's withdrawal could rest on the acceptable argument that any continued agreement membership would jeopardize its "supreme interests."
It could do this very easily, of course, merely by giving "three-months notice."
Military and strategic failings of the new Iran agreement should be granted pride of place in any identification of prospective risks. At the same time, the United States is normally represented as a law-abiding nation, and this agreement's stark subversion of both international and national law could not simply be ignored. To be sure, the new pact would have devastating security consequences for both the United States and Israel, but this should not stand in the way of simultaneously recognizing its overwhelming illegality. Indeed, such corollary recognition could prove decisive in offering necessary arguments for an 11th-hour rejection of this uniquely bad agreement.
Where Does the Moral Duty of Elected Officials Lie?
“It is clear now that we also have a moral duty to act to take in more of these people and help them to rebuild their lives,” said Harriet Harman, leader of the U.K.’s main opposition Labour Party, in a letter to the prime minister Thursday. (source)
What about the moral duty to preserve Britain for the British people?
No doubt Obama will wave in tens of thousands more Muslim refugees before his term ends too, regardless of the feelings of the American people.
"The Nazis did terrible evil, but they had a sufficient sense of shame to try to hide it," Abbott said. "These people boast about their evil, this is the extraordinary thing," Abbot said of Islamic State fighters.
"They act in the way that medieval barbarians acted, only they broadcast it to the world with an effrontery which is hard to credit," he added.
However, Executive Council of Australian Jewry President Robert Goot said there was a "fundamental difference between organized acts of terrorism and a genocide systematically implemented by a state as essential policy."
The Islamic State would have no problem implementing a policy of genocide against the Jews if there were any within their territory. If they had a nuke, they'd use it on Israel.
Abbott later said he wasn't in the business of ranking evil, but stood by his comments.
"I do make this point, that unlike previous evil-doers, whether we're talking about Stalin, Hitler or whoever, that tried to cover up their evil, this wretched death cult boasts about it," Abbott told reporters.
TEHRAN, Iran – Iran's supreme leader says world powers must lift international sanctions and not merely suspend them as part of a landmark nuclear agreement.
Speaking to a group of clerics, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said "there will be no deal" if the sanctions are not lifted. His remarks were read by a state TV anchorman.
Khamenei says some U.S. officials have spoken of the "suspension" of the sanctions, which he says is unacceptable. He says Iran will only partially comply with its commitments if the sanctions are merely suspended.
Dabiq Holds Garland Attack on Muhammad Cartoon Exhibit As Example for Others to Follow
From the Foreword in the latest issue of Dabiq (the official ISIS propaganda magazine):
As the crusaders continue to reveal their intense hatred and animosity towards Islam through their relentless bombing and drone campaigns on the Islamic State, a new breed of crusader continues shedding light on the extent of their hatred towards the religion of truth. This breed of crusader aims to do nothing more than to anger the Muslims by mocking and ridiculing the best of creation, the Prophet Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdill?h (sallall?hu ‘alayhi wa sallam), under the pretext of defending the idol of “freedom of speech.”
Freedom of speech is not an idol. A man's free thought and expression are gifts from the real God. It is the false God of Islam which seeks to take it away.
Yet, such brazen attacks on the honor of the Prophet (sallall?hu ‘alayhi wa sallam), rather than deterring or disheartening the Muslims, serve as further incitement, spurring them into confronting the forces of kufr with whatever means they have available. Such was the case with Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi, two brave men who took it upon themselves to remind the enemies of Allah and His Messenger (sallall?hu ‘alayhi wa sallam) that as long as they choose to wage war on Islam, they would have no peace and security, would not be able to walk their own streets without looking over their shoulders, and would not be able to make public appearances without being surrounding by a legion of bodyguards and security personnel.
I wish that police officer had been identified. He should have been fêted here just as the brave young men who stopped the jihadist on the train in France have been.
The two lions of the Khil?fah arrived at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas three weeks ago during a convention that featured a competition to draw the Prophet (sallall?hu ‘alayhi wa sallam) in an attempt to mock and ridicule him. The two muj?hid?n came armed and ready to wage war, ignited a gun battle with the policemen guarding the center, and attained a noble shah?dah in pursuit of vengeance for the honor of our beloved Prophet (sallall?hu ‘alayhi wa sallam).
Poor, deluded boys gave their lives for nothing. But rather their lives were lost than those of Geert Wilders, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer.
Their determination to support the cause of Allah and punish those who insult the Prophet (sallall?hu ‘alayhi wa sallam) should serve as inspiration to those residing in the lands of the crusaders who are still hesitant to perform their duty. Those men who have read the countless ?y?t and ah?d?th on the virtues of jih?d and have made sincere du’?’ to Allah asking Him for shah?dah but have yet to act, should consider that Allah will not grant them their du’?’ until they take a step towards this noble duty.
These attacks will inevitably lead to the halting of Muslim immigration. As Christina McIntosh says, we can't keep playing Muslim roulette.
The hypocrites will sit back, the true men will step forward, and the kuff?r will have no peace and no security. May Allah accept our two brothers amongst the leaders of the shuhad?’ in Jannah.
In contests between two levels of reality - the higher level is bound to prevail. Illusion must ultimately succumb to reality.
Democrat Senators provide final votes supporting President Obama on the Iran Nuclear Pact
President Obama at American University, Washington, DC
August 5, 2015
Maryland Democrat Senator Barbara Mikulski clinched President Obama's Iran Nuclear Deal today by announcing her support making it a virtual fait accompli. The President can now veto Congressional Resolutions rejecting the pact. The Washington Post headline today tells the story, “Chris Coons and Bob Casey back Iran deal, putting Obama one vote from major diplomatic victory.” The Iran nuclear pact comes up for a vote 15 days from now at the latest could be mooted by a possible filibuster or may be ended by a likely Presidential veto of a majority vote rejecting it in both Chambers of Congress. It begs the questions of whether there is any means of stopping this dangerous and misguided deal from being implemented. Depending on whether a successor overturns the multilateral agreement that according to the Administration would be a major diplomatic faux pas. As we have written in a September 2015, NER article there may be more options than simply voiding it as an executive political agreement by a new President in January 2017. Republicans and a few Democrats are seeking to target sanctions against Iranian Revolutionary Guard Leaders and the Ayatollah who own companies that would benefit economically from the release of $100 billion in sequestered funds in US financial institutions resulting from implementing the JCPOA. There is also increasing interest in several legislative alternatives. That is reflected in a FrontPage Magazine article published today by Robert B, Sklaroff and Lee S. Bender, Esq., “The Only Way to Block the Iran TREATY: Sue Obama.” Their bottom line:
Emergency Prescription for Senate: —Pass rule that abolishes the filibuster; —Pass resolution declaring the Iran nuke deal to be a “treaty”; —Defeat the deal; and —Sue President Obama to enjoin him from implementing the deal.
Opinion polls taken of Americans indicate that by a margin of 2 to 1 they urge members of both Congressional Chambers to vote against it. Trusting that approval of this deal will cut off Iran from all pathways from achieving industrialization of nuclear weapons- whether in a few weeks, months or a decade or more- amount to sleepwalking towards oblivion. Many analysts and military nuclear experts think that Iran may already have nuclear weapons and shortly the means of delivering them. Further, believing that $100 billion plus of sequestered Iranian funds will be devoted to rebuilding a beleaguered Iranian economy and raising the living standards of Iranians is myopic. It will go to lining the pockets of the Ayatollah Khamenei and Revolutionary Guard leaders. Furthermore, it will fund proxies, Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Houthi rebels in Yemen to destabilize the Middle East and conduct low intensity warfare against America, Israel other Middle East allies. The Saudis, Egyptians, Emirates say that if the pact is approved they will develop their own nuclear weapons capabilities. War might likely loom. President Obama has allegedly called opponents “crazies,” criticized those who say he’s anti-Semitic by replying he doesn't have a smidgen of that, while inveighing the infamous Juden frage- Jewish question , an innuendo of dual loyalty. We have witnessed Congress straying from the pathway suggested by Senators Cotton (R-AR), Cruz (R-TX), Johnson (R-WI), Rubio (R-FL) and others that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action should have been treated as a treaty under Article III of the Constitution requiring the advice and consent of the Senate. The result was the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 enacted into law with a stroke of the President's pen on May 22, 2015.
Following the announcement of the JCPOA on July 14, 2015 and the unanimous endorsement by the UN Security Council on July 22, 2015, testimony provided by Administration negotiators, led by Secretary of State Kerry, Energy Secretary Earnest Moniz, and Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman has, if anything, raised concerns about the enforceability of the Iran nuclear pact. Most appalling they exhibited in their responses to Senate and House Committee Members less than curiosity about the provisions of confidential agreements between the UN nuclear watchdog agency, IAEA and the Islamic Republic of Iran. They suggested that to do so would interfere with the confidential nature of such activities between the IAEA and the Islamic Republic under UN protocols. The IAEA in turn requested an estimated $10.5 million annually as the required contribution from the US, a board member of the IAEA, to support their activities inspecting and monitoring Iran’s progress towards an alleged ‘peaceful’ nuclear energy program.
Watch this Yahoo News video of Secretary Kerry at the National Convention Center in Philadelphia, today making the final sales pitch for approval of the Iran Nuclear Pact:
Based on the hearing record, the expert witness testimony presenting contradictory views, Americans now realize that there will likely be less than a robust, intrusive inspection scheme. A scheme that would rely on the UN nuclear watchdog, the IAEA. Instead, Iranian inspection of known military development sites will be used to produce a Road Map of prior military developments enabling release of $100 billion of sequestered funds. Moreover, there already have been breaches of conventional weapons and missile technology purchases, despite the 5 and 8 year sunset provisions under UN Security Council Resolution 1929. There have also been breaches of lifting restrictions on travel bans and assets of more than 800 individuals and entities largely controlled by the Ayatollah, mullahs and Revolutionary Guard elite like Quds Firce Commander Qasem Soliemani. Paul Alster in his Fox News criticism of the Iran deal pointed out that Iran has already launched attacks against Israel via proxies in the country’s North . He also suggest s the diversion of $1 billion of released funds that would go annually to underwrite the support of Iran’s terrorist proxies attacking US ally Israel and others in the Middle East Region. Then there is the delivery of new precision rockets and missiles to Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
We could go on, but it is moot given the President is likely before Labor Day to line up all of the votes required for him to veto the rejection resolutions voted by the Republican majorities of both houses with a sprinkling of Democrats with moral compasses. There may never be a vote in the Senate, as Minority Leader Reid has offered up the alternative of killing the vote via a filibuster and resort to the so-called “nuclear option” used for approving Judicial appointment in 2013. That is unless the suggestion by Sklaroff and Bender about the Senate passing a rule banishing the so-called “nuclear option” is adopted.
This brings us to Plan B - a suit by the Senate against the President’s actions brought before the US Supreme Court that might result in a ruling granting the senior Chamber an up or down vote treating the Iran nuclear pact as a treaty. We believe its time for serious consideration of the Sklaroff Bender proposal as the Senate would have standing whereas individuals may not. That is evidenced by Federal Judge Kenneth A. Marra’s ex cathedra remarks in the Palm Beach Federal District Court in response to a declaratory judgment motion filed by Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch on August 4, 2015. We commend Freedom Watch for bringing that action.
Listen to this 1330amWEBY segment that aired on September 1, 2015 with Mike Bates, Host of Your Turn and Senior editor, Jerry Gordon discussing the Iran nuclear pact and options to overturn it.
Now we have to see whether Senate Majority Republican Leaders have the courage of their convictions to bring such an important landmark case before the Supreme Court to protect Americans from the threat of an Iranian nuclear attack. Presidential hopefuls and Congressional leaders who will speak before a huge crowd of concerned Americans gathered on the back lawn of the US Capitol Building in Washington on September 9th at the March to Save America might echo their resolve to sue the President. That is contingent on whether he carries out his threat to veto the majority vote in both Chambers of Congress rejecting the Iran nuclear pact backed by the opinions of a majority of Americans.
Now it is time for concerted action by those bi-partisan Members of Congress who reject the Iran nuclear pact. Tens of millions of Americans are disturbed by the President’s appeasement of a keystone member of the Evil Axis, the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Tallinn - protest critical of President Putin of Russia
In Tallinn, capital city of Estonia this afternoon. I don't speak either Estonian or Russian to understand the speeches or to find out who the group were. But they were against any war in Ukraine or the imprisonment of political prisoners and they had a low opinion of Vladimir Putin.
The cafe they were outside is a rather beautiful Art Nouveau establishment which was noted as a meeting place in Tallinn for discussion and debate for decades under several repressive regimes. It is immediately opposite the Russian Consulate.
The stories and photographs of migrants attempting to enter Europe is a human tragedy, heartbreaking as people die trying to cross the Mediterranean. On August 27, 2015, over 50 migrants were found dead inside an abandoned truck, a Hungarian registered vehicle, abandoned on a highway in Austria, near the Hungarian border. In April, more than 400 died in a shipwreck in the Mediterranean. In August, several hundred people were on board a boat that sank off the coast of Libya. So far, more than 2,300 have died while crossing the sea.
European countries are groping for solutions to the large numbers of immigrants that is linked to other issues such as border controls and criminal networks. Reasonable estimates suggest that about 200,000 arrived in Greece this year, about 100,000 entered Italy, and 3,000 a day are migrating through the Balkans. More than 100,000 boat people entered the European Union in July 2015.
Europe has no consensus on the problem. Germany in particular, expecting to get 800,000 migrants, 40 per cent of them asylum seekers, proposes an immigration law that would allow for legalization of migrants from non-EU countries. Chancellor Angela Merkel holds that immigration is more beneficial than not. Some individual Germans provide hospitality. Others do not, and more than 200 assaults on shelters for asylum seekers have occurred.
Britain has tried by various means to reduce the flow of migrants that has risen to 330,000 this year. Among them are plans to make it more difficult for British businesses to recruit skilled workers from outside the European Union, to reduce work benefits, to limit access to welfare for the unemployed, and to allow only migrants with a job already promised to enter the U.K.
At least four problems arise from the increasing migration crisis: the reality and possibility of terrorism; political friction within the European countries; the increased support of right-wing extremist organizations; and the larger proportion of Muslims in the European nations.
Two recent incidents indicate the possibility and danger of cross-border terrorism. One was the attempted attack on August 21, 2015 on the high speed train between Amsterdam and Paris by a 26-year-old Moroccan who had connections to radical mosques on Spain, and is said to be linked to a cell of French ISIS militants in Turkey. This jihadist, Ayoub el Khazzani, lived in at least five European countries, able to cross borders without difficulty.
This is due to the Schengen arrangement that allows free travel movement between most of the EU countries. Apart from providing the right of free travel to citizens, this was originally intended, among other things such as lessen the possibility of organized crime and terrorist threats, to allow freedom to move to a job already offered. It is now the opportunity to allow people in EU without jobs to move in search of work and benefits, putting pressure on public services. But it also allows terrorists to move freely without restrictions or checks.
The second incident was the arrest in Italy of a 22-year-old Moroccan who had been involved in an attack on an art museum in Tunisia, and who had entered Italy together with 90 other migrants in the Sicilian port of Porto Empedocle.
A possible danger is that Iran or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or terrorist groups elsewhere could foster militants coming into EU disguised as migrants. On May 18, 2015, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg spoke of this possibility of foreign fighters, terrorists trying to hide and blend with migrants. It may be the case that the EU already has several thousands of its citizens who have fought for jihadists in Iraq and Syria, and may become “lone wolf” militants.
NATO is supposed to be working on the “root causes” of the large numbers seeking migration by working with partners in the Middle East and North Africa to help them stabilize their own countries. It is trying to help those countries take more responsibility for their own security. Thus, Jordan is being assisted in defense capacities, in training, and advising. Western countries are trying to assist in achieving a cease-fire and reaching a peaceful negotiated solution for the conflict in Libya.
It is crucial to find and to dismantle the criminal networks responsible for smuggling, or pretending to smuggle, people across the Mediterranean. These criminals force large numbers on to boats that take on water after leaving the Libyan coast because of the extra weight. European naval forces have limited their activities, and should do more to stop and search boats on the sea.
Despite the NATO search for reasons, the real “root cause”, the elephant in the room, for migration to Europe is ignored. It is the unwillingness of Arab and Muslim states to help and to accommodate the migrants coming from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, and other Muslim countries. One might reasonably expect the migrants, escaping their suffering from war, oppression and poverty, to be offered shelter in the wealthier countries such as Saudi Arabia, the Gulf countries, the United Arab Emirates including Qatar and Dubai.
The refusal of these countries to aid fellow Muslims is inexcusable. The UAE, the federation of seven states founded in 1971, is enormously wealthy, with 10 per cent of the world’s supply of crude oil reserves, and oil exports that account for 30 per cent of its GDP. Dubai is economically successful with its heavy investments in real estate, airlines, ports, the drug trade, and human trafficking. It displays its wealth by its rain forest in the desert, large shopping malls, and the world’s tallest twin towers. Dubai is already preparing for the World Expo to be held there in 2020.
Qatar, with the highest per capita income in the world, has become influential politically and economically, punching, as the British say, above its weight. Politically, it has been involved in assisting Libyan rebels, those opposing the Assad regime in Syria, and aiding the ruling party in Tunisia. It owns, in whole or in part, the Al Jazeera Media Network, property in London including the Shard, Canary Wharf, Barclays Bank, Harrods Store, No. 1 Hyde Park, the world’s most expensive block of apartments, British horse racing, Sainsbury’s Stores, and the London Stock Exchange, and the football club Paris St. Germain in France. Qatar is spending lavishly on preparing to host the football FIFA World Cup competition in 2022.
One can understand that the favorite charity of these wealthy Arab nations is themselves, but it is not unreasonable for the “international community” to demand that they share some of their wealth and take responsibility for helping Muslims caught the violence, the horrors and the oppression of other Muslim states. Now is the time for the world community to discuss, the problem and to ask, in the words of Socrates, do you know by what means the wealthy Arab nations might be persuaded to change their behavior and do the right thing.
A well-known religious figure is reported to have said: “For ye have the poor with you always.” This is even more the case if economic inequality persists (as the history of the world suggests it might) and poverty is defined in relative terms. The same well-known figure added, however, that “whensoever ye will, ye may do them good.”
The question, of course, becomes what constitutes good in this context.
A new way of doing the poor good has been proposed in France: namely, a legal prohibition of pejorative remarks about them. It’s an idea that a British journalist, writing in the Guardian, found worthy of adoption in her own country. We may not be able to reduce poverty (howsoever defined), but at least we can boost the self-esteem of the poor and stop them feeling bad about themselves. Such, at any rate, is the theory.
Poverty, said Doctor Johnson, is an insufficiency of necessities, but this definition is far less categorical than might at first appear since what is considered a necessity tends to expand with general wealth and technical advance. I suspect that, given the choice between wholesome food and a mobile telephone, many people in the modern world would choose the telephone. No matter how much infant mortality declines or life expectancy increases, no matter what the rising tide of consumption, then, the poor we shall continue to have with us.
In a world that is supposedly meritocratic, in which the possibility of social mobility is believed to be the norm, morally if not empirically, the poor—the relatively poor, that is—have two choices, neither of them very attractive: to consider themselves failures or, as a way of avoiding doing so, to resent the difference between the world as it is supposed to be and the world as (they believe) it is. And since belief is often a determining feature of reality, the world does indeed come to resemble the one of their imagining. Even where there is opportunity, or at least no formal obstacle to advancement, they do not register this, for the manacles forged by their minds are gratifying. By which I mean being a victim of injustice has more appeal than being a failure.
No one, as far as I know, has yet advanced the idea that the rich should be protected from derogation. The same newspaper whose columnist thought it would be a good idea to censor unpleasant or insulting comments about the poor regularly publishes cartoons that, with all the subtlety of Der Stürmer, use iconography little changed from that of a century ago. Vilifying the rich is taken by the newspaper as the sign of a generous heart, and furthermore, one which costs nothing.
The rich are, of course, a small minority. We are constantly reminded of the division of the population into the 99 percent and the 1 per cent—references to which always leave me worrying neurotically about which category I belong in, my desire to be among the economically successful conflicting with a desire to be inconspicuous and ordinary. In any case it is always carelessly supposed that the members of this small group can look after themselves and require no anti-discriminatory assistance from lawmakers. The feelings of the rich do not have to be spared because 1) they have other compensations and 2) they can defend themselves.
Let us disregard the economic status of the rich and just consider the indisputable history of the 20th century. If communism counts as a form of economic egalitarianism and therefore as a movement to destroy or abolish the rich as a class, ideological antagonism toward the rich may be said to have been responsible for scores of millions of deaths. This is not altogether surprising, for if poverty is relative, so is wealth: As countries decline in wealth, so a poorer and poorer man will come to be regarded as wealthy. In Russia a kulak was often defined as a man who owned a horse, cow, or pig, and was therefore considered as an exploiter—of his fellow man, not of the horse, cow, or pig—and rightly to be eliminated. But no matter how much elimination you go in for, ye have the rich with you always.
Few emotions are as easy to stir but as difficult to control as envy and hatred of the rich. What Freud called the narcissism of small differences means that increased equality does not necessarily assuage or lessen such hatred, for there is no end to the pettiness of humankind. How much envy and jealousy are provoked by trifling differences in status?
If it were right, then, to censor the expression of dangerous or unpleasant sentiments, it would be right above all to censor expressions of economic egalitarianism, a doctrine that proved so dangerously inflammatory only a few decades ago and that we have no reason to believe could not have the same terrible effects again. Under such a law, anyone who argued that the rich ipso facto exploited the poor would be subject to prosecution for a form of so-called hate speech that has abundantly demonstrated its potential for provoking violence.
This proposal, incidentally, could be justified irrespective of the actual conduct of the rich. Personally I have not found the rich to be much better (or worse) than the poor, though it is surely easy enough to understand that if poverty is often an extenuation of bad behavior, wealth is sometimes an aggravating circumstance. But what we are concerned with here is not the actual conduct of the rich, but the effects—and they have been historically disastrous—of provoking hatred of them.
I hope it is needless to say that I do not really think people who shout “Rich bastard!” (odd how the connotation of the word bastard has survived social acceptance of bastardy itself), or even Nobel prize-winning economists such as Paul Krugman, should be hauled away and prosecuted. For the term hate speech is itself hateful—a provocation of the very emotion that those who make use of it claim to hate.
Preserving them from insult will do them no more good, at least in a secularized world, than telling them they are the beloved of God.
Many of you have written asking about Hugh Fitzgerald.
Hugh is battling depression and has been hospitalized. I spoke to him yesterday and he is very concerned about the side effects from the medication he is receiving. As is often the case, the cure seems to be worse than the disease.
Please keep him in your prayers. He is certainly one of the most brilliant writers and political commentators working today and NER is much poorer without him. We hope to have him back soon.
Keith Simmonds has won the crossword competition for August (again). He will receive a copy of Theodore Dalrymple's Out Into The Beautiful World. Congratulations Keith! And to everyone who came close, try try again.
On August 17, 2015, just over a month after the announcement of the JCPOA in Vienna, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said in a speech at a conference held by the Iranian Shi'ite Ahl Al-Bayt organization that the U.S. is the embodiment of the enemy of the Islamic peoples and of Iran. It must be fought with military, cultural, economic, and political jihad, he said, adding that Islamic Iran is not interested in reconciling with it. He further claimed that the U.S. is attempting to divide the Islamic world into Shi'ite and Sunni camps that will wage a religious war against each other, and in this way gain it will be able to gain control over the peoples of the region.
Iran, he stressed, stands behind the resistance axis, opposes the division of Syria and Iraq, and will continue to support anyone who fights Israel.
Following are excerpts from a report on the speech that was posted on Khamenei's website (Leader.ir):
"[Khamenei said:] 'We must combat the plans of the arrogance [i.e. the West, led by the U.S.] with jihad for the sake of Allah.' The Leader pointed to 'America's efforts to exploit the results of the nuclear talks and exert economic, political, and cultural influence in Iran' and to the plots of the power-hungry order aimed at sowing conflict and gaining influence in the region. The Leader called for 'adopting the correct plans in order to wisely and consistently fight this plot, in an offense against it and a defense against it.'
"[Khamenei said:] 'Jihad for the sake of God does not only mean military conflict, but also means cultural, economic, and political struggle. The clearest essence of jihad for the sake of God today is to identify the plots of the arrogance in the Islamic region, especially the sensitive and strategic West Asian region. The planning for the struggle against them should include both defense and offense.
"[He continued:] 'The plots of the arrogance in the region have continued for a century, but [its] pressure and plotting increased after Iran's Islamic Revolution , in order to prevent [this Revolution] from spreading to other countries. For 35 years, the regime in Iran has been subjected to threats, sanctions, security pressure, and various political plots. The Iranian nation has grown accustomed to this pressure. After the Islamic awakening movement blossomed in recent years in North Africa [i.e. the Arab Spring], the enemy greatly stepped up its plots in the West Asian region because of its panic.
"'The enemies thought that they could suppress the Islamic awakening movement, but it cannot be suppressed. It continues, and sooner or later it will prove itself as reality.
"'The power-hungry order led by the United States of America is the perfectly clear embodiment of "the concept of the enemy." America has no human morality. It carries out evil crimes under the guise of flowery statements and smiles. The enemy's plot is two pronged: creating conflict and [exerting] influence. [The enemy sows conflict] among governments, and, worse, among the nations. At this stage, they are using the Shi'a and the Sunna to create conflict among the nations. Britain is an expert in sowing conflict; the Americans are its apprentices.
"'Establishing violent despicable criminal takfiri circles, which the Americans have acknowledged establishing, is the main means of sowing conflict, ostensibly religious conflict, among [the Muslim] nations. Sadly, some innocent and ignorant Muslims have been fooled by this plot, and have been tricked by the enemy and fallen into its trap. Syria is an obvious example of this. When Tunisia and Egypt, with Islamic slogans, ousted their infidel governments, the Americans and Zionists decided to use this formula to eliminate the countries of the resistance, turning their attention to Syria. After the events in Syria began, some ignorant Muslims were tricked by the enemy and dragged Syria to its current situation. What is happening today in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and other countries, which some people insist on calling "a religious war," is in no way a war of religion [i.e. Sunni vs. Shi'ite], but a political war. The most important duty today is to remove these conflicts.
"'I have explicitly stated that Iran reaches out in friendship to all the Islamic governments in the region, and that we have no problem with Muslim governments. Iran has friendly relations with most of its neighbors. Some still have conflicts with us; they are stubborn, and carry out nefarious acts, but Iran aspires to good relations with its neighbors and with the Islamic governments, especially with the governments in the region. The basis for Iran's conduct comprises the principles laid out by Imam Khomeini, which he used to bring about victory for the Islamic Revolution, and he led it to a phase of stability.
"'One of the principles of the [Islamic] regime [in Iran] is to be "forceful against the disbelievers, merciful amongst themselves [Koran 48:29]." On the basis of Imam Khomeini's lesson, we do not wish to reconcile with the arrogance, but we aspire to friendship with our Muslim brothers. When we support [any of] the oppressed, we ignore the religious element; we provide the same aid to our Shi'ite brothers in Lebanon and to our Sunni brothers in Gaza. We see the Palestinian issue as the chief issue of the Islamic world."
On May 8, 2015, French president François Hollande spoke at the Elysée Palace at a ceremony at which prizes were awarded to middle and high school students for the best essays in memory of the Resistance and Deportation. It was exactly seventy years since Charles de Gaulle on May 8, 1945 broadcast the official end of World War II: "We have won the war. Victory is ours. It is the victory of the United Nations and the victory of France."
Twenty years later, de Gaulle, aware of the divisions in France, said, or is reputed to have said, "How can anyone govern a nation that has 246 different kinds of cheese?" By coincidence, in the same month of May as the 70th anniversary of the end of the war for France, there were three reminders in Paris of the relevance of de Gaulle's jibe.
One was an exhibition marking the centenary of the birth of Edith Piaf, "the little sparrow." A second was the bitter feud between the extremist Holocaust denier Jean-Marie Le Pen, opposed to immigration and defender of the wartime Vichy regime, and his less extreme daughter Marine, who had him expelled from the Front National (FN) party he founded in 1972.
The third was the opening of an exhibition at the Centre Pompidou in Paris, dedicated on the 50th anniversary of his death to the work of the modernist architect Le Corbusier, born Charles-Edouard Jeanneret-Gris in Switzerland in 1887 and who became a French citizen in 1930. The exhibition, "The Measures of Man," a collection of 300 of his paintings, sculptures, architectural and other drawings, photographs, and films, aimed to illustrate his humanism.
No one can be seriously troubled by the wartime activities of Piaf, who has been accused of giving recitals during the Nazi occupation and of sleeping with the enemy. The sexual peccadilloes of this national icon who "regretted nothing" are of little concern except to the two or three people involved.
Many more are concerned about the behavior of the right-wing FN, its present political strength and success in local and regional elections, its attacks on the French political class, and the presidential ambitions of Marine Le Pen. The theory of quantum mechanics suggests that information can never be lost, even when it falls into a black hole. Though the FN under her leadership is trying to appeal to mainstream voters, its past opposition to the democratic French republic and its continuing approval of the anti-Semitic Vichy regime cannot be forgotten – nor can the significance of the party logo, a tricolor flame, with neo-Fascist implications.
French artists and writers have long been involved in political partisanship, whether communist, Maoist, monarchist, fascist, or anti-Semitic. The best-known incident illustrating this interest in affairs of state was during the Dreyfus Affair, when strong divisions developed, with Camille Pissarro and Claude Monet affirming and Degas and Cézanne denying the innocence of Dreyfus. In the twentieth century, French avant-garde modernist artists took part in or were attracted to fascist movements and fascist mythmaking. Among them were the symbolist Maurice Denis, the Fauve Maurice Vlaminck, the sculptors Charles Despiau and Aristide Maillol, and the architect Le Corbusier.
The work of Le Corbusier has long been admired but has also been the center of controversy. Many other architects have been influenced by his works, the most famous of which are the La Cité Radieuse in Marseille, which is under consideration as a World Heritage site by UNESCO; the Corbusierhaus in Berlin; the High Court building in Chandigarh; the Unite d'Habitation; Villa Savoye; and the Catholic chapel Notre Dame du Haut in Ronchamp.
Once praised for his modern architecture, such as innovative pairing of functional apartment blocks with parks, Le Corbusier became increasingly criticized for being obsessed with mass regimentation and order, and for creating ghettoes. He was held responsible for destroying historic city centers; for formulating the concept of segregated suburban communities, such as the banlieues, with the alienation and violence they generated; and for erecting buildings that were not well-suited to everyday life. Paris was fortunate that his 1925 plan to raze the center of the city and replace it with high-rise blocks and motorways was rejected.
His creation in 1943 of The Modular, a system of measurement based on the height of an average man, to be applied to architecture, was criticized as a fascist aesthetic for its mechanistic approach. Le Corbusier was accused of dehumanizing the individual by proposing a universal module for domestic structures, constructing machine houses for machine bodies. The human animal would then become like a bee, living in geometric cells.
Le Corbusier's political ideas and his architecture were part of a pattern. His fascist politics and political urbanism go hand in hand – fascism in concrete. By imposing a uniform configuration of straight geometric regularity and standardization on the urban environment, he felt he could banish the chaos of a diverse society and create a milieu that would encapsulate a concept of purity and order, virile and hygienic.
Now, as the result of two books about him, he has, posthumously, become a controversial political figure. His relationship with the Vichy regime, where he kept an office for 18 months, has long been known. What is new are revelations about the extent of his fascist-related activity over a 20-year period, starting in the 1920s, when he was a close friend of Pierre Winter, a doctor who was the head of the Revolutionary Fascist Party. He also endorsed the Faisceau movement of Georges Valois, a Fascist leader in the 1920s. He also approved the ideas of regional syndicalism, opposing capitalism and calling for direct action, and of Hubert Lagardelle, who became the minister of labor in the Vichy regime.
He was involved in Plans, an urban planning journal, writing some anti-Semitic articles. He attended Fascist rallies in Paris, had connections with Italian fascists, and was hostile to parliamentary democracy. His references to "social hygiene" indicate his belief that modern society was unhealthy and in need of transformation.
The two books, Un Corbusier by François Chaslin and particularly Le Courbusier: A French Fascism by Xavier de Jarcy, make clear that this important artist was an outright fascist.
Le Corbusier was a member of a militant fascist group and approved of the demonstration in Paris on February 6, 1934 to overthrow the democratic regime he detested. He was the author of some 20 articles arguing in favor of a corporatist state on the model of Mussolini's ideas in Italy. He welcomed the Vichy regime, which he thought would deal with Jews and freemasons, "who would feel just law." The regime would build a new France. He had an office at the Carlton Hotel in Vichy as an adviser on urbanism until his city plans for Algiers were rejected in June 1942.
It is pleasing to know that contemporary France understands that the unwelcome expressions and actions of the past must not be repeated. The recent speeches of President Holland and Prime Minister Manuel Valls are reminders that France today is and must be vigilant against the resurgence of anti-Semitism and racism. Imaginary evil, as distinguished from real evil, according to the French philosopher Simone Weil, is often seen as romantic and varied. France, like all democratic countries, must be on guard against real evil and disagreeable realities.
British scholars have suggested that fragments of the world's oldest known Koran, which were discovered last month, may predate the accepted founding date of Islam by the Muslim prophet Muhammad.
The Times of London reported that radiocarbon dating carried out by experts at the University of Oxford says the fragments were produced between the years 568 A.D. and 645 A.D. Muhammad is generally believed to have lived between 570 A.D. and 632 A.D. The man known to Muslims as The Prophet is thought to have founded Islam sometime after 610 A.D., with the first Muslim community established at Medina, in present-day Saudi Arabia, in 622 A.D.
"This gives more ground to what have been peripheral views of the Koran's genesis, like that Muhammad and his early followers used a text that was already in existence and shaped it to fit their own political and theological agenda, rather than Muhammad receiving a revelation from heaven," Keith Small of Oxford's Bodleian Library told the Times.
The two sheets of Islam's holy book were discovered in a library at the University of Birmingham in England, where they had been mistakenly bound in a Koran dating to the seventh century. They were part of a collection of 3,000 Middle Eastern texts gathered in Iraq in the 1920s.
Muslims scholars have disputed the idea that the Birmingham Koran predates Muhammad, with Mustafa Shah of the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies telling the Times: "If anything, the manuscript has consolidated traditional accounts of the Koran's origins."
The first known formal text of the Koran was not assembled until 653 A.D. on the orders of Uthman, the third caliph, or leader of the Muslim community after Muhammad's death. Before that, however, fragments of the work had circulated through oral tradition, though parts of the work had also been written down on stones, leaves, parchment and bones. The fragments of the Birmingham Koran were written on either sheepskin or goatskin.
Small cautioned that the carbon dating was only done on the parchment in the fragments, and not the actual ink, but added "If the dates apply to the parchment and the ink, and the dates across the entire range apply, then the Koran — or at least portions of it — predates Mohammed, and moves back the years that an Arabic literary culture is in place well into the 500s."