Saturday, December 24, 2016

Amb. Bolton on US abstention from UN Israel vote - FoxNews.com




by FoxNews.com

Forrmer Ambassador John Bolton speaks of the ramifications of the UN vote condemning Israeli settlements as illegal, and discusses how the US might counter such a move.





FoxNews.com

Source: http://video.foxnews.com/v/5260207465001/?#sp=show-clips

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Netanyahu calls UN resolution 'absurd' and 'skewed' - Arutz Sheva Staff




by Arutz Sheva Staff


Prime Minister Netanyahu says newest UN resolution is most absurd ever, says it pushes peace farther away.




During a Hanukkah candle-lighting ceremony on Saturday night, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said the UN Security Council's Resolution 2334 was distorted and shameful.

"Citizens of Israel," he said, "I want to calm you down. The decision reached yesterday in the UN is distorted and shameful, but we shall overcome it. The decision makes the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem's Old City 'occupied' territory - that's delusional. It says that the Western Wall, the Kotel, is 'occupied' territory - that's just as delusional. There is nothing more absurd than calling the Western Wall and Jewish Quarter occupied territory."

"This is a failed attempt to force the conditions of a final agreement on Israel. Their last attempt to accomplish this was led by President Carter, who was totally hostile to Israel and just recently said that Hamas is not a terror group," Netanyahu continued. "Carter passed anti-Israel resolutions in the UN, similar to these resolutions, but he did not succeed. We opposed his resolutions and nothing happened.

"All the American presidents after Carter have stood by the US promise not to allow the UN to force Israel to do anything. Yesterday, US President Barack Obama violated this promise - as well as his own promise from 2011- when he did not use his veto power to veto this anti-Israel resolution in the UN.

"Not only does this decision not bring peace closer, it in fact pushes peace farther away. It is an affront to justice, to truth. Think about how absurd it is. Half a million people slaughtered in Syria, tens of thousands in Sudan, the entire Middle East is in flames and Obama's government and the Security Council decide to attack the only democracy in the Middle Est - Israel. How shameful!

"My friends, on this first night of Hanukkah, I want to tell you that it will do them no good. We will completely oppose this resolution, as we did when the UN decided that 'Zionism is Racism.' That decision was revoked and so will this one be. It just takes time. And it won't be revoked by our giving in, but by our standing strong with our allies at our side. I remind you that we left Gaza, destroyed communities, removed people from their graves. Did that help us at the UN in any way? Did it improve the UN's attitude to us? We got thousand of rockets on our heads from Gaza and the Goldstone Report from the UN.

Friday's decision is a call to arms for all of Israel's friends in the US, and all those who are sick of the anti-Israel bias in the UN. Those who come to curse us, will end up blessing us instead," Netanyahu concluded, referring to the biblical story of Balaam.

Netanyahu also announced he had instructed officials to cut off 30 million NIS ($7.8 million) worth of funding for five UN bodies which are particularly hostile to Israel. More such action will follow, he promised.

In addition, Netanyahu said he had recalled Israel's ambassadors from New Zealand and Senegal, two of the four countries which sponsored the resolution and have diplomatic relations with Israel. As well, Israeli aid to Senegal has also been halted.

UN Resolution 2334 states that all building in Judea, Samaria, and eastern Jerusalem is completely illegal, violates international law, and harms potential for a two-state solution. The resolution requires Israel to immediately cease all building in all areas outside of the pre-1967 borders, and states that the UN will not recognize anything outside the pre-1967 borders unless it has been formally agreed upon by both Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The United States abstained.

The Palestinian Authority refuses to discuss beginning direct negotiations with Israel before its preconditions are met.


Arutz Sheva Staff

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/222207

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Bennett: Apply Israeli law in Judea and Samaria - Uzi Baruch




by Uzi Baruch

Education Minister says terrorists view UN resolution as approval of terror attacks.

Education Minister Naftali Bennett
Education Minister Naftali Bennett
Flash 90
Education Minister Naftali Bennett (Jewish Home) spoke about the UN's latest anti-Israel resolution on Saturday night.

"We're about to go from retreat to sovereignty. Thousands of terrorists the world over are looking at the UN's decision. They see it as a call to arms. This decision is a direct result of Oslo's policy of surrender, retreat, and divisions. It's a result of public agreement to create a Palestinian state in our country's heartland. This resolution will be thrown into history's garbage can, just like its predecessors," Bennett said.

"We have not gained honor and love by retreating, but shame and international pressure to surrender even more. This is the time to make a 180 degree turn. It's time to go from retreat to sovereignty," he emphasized.

"The conclusion needs to be that we will no longer agree to suicide through creating a Palestinian state, and we will work to apply Israeli law in Ma'ale Adumim, in the Jordan Valley, in Ofra, and in all of Area C as soon as possible."

Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely (Likud), who is currently on an official visit to Georgia, said, "The Obama administration will not be able to cover up its failure in Aleppo with its shameful decision regarding Israel. He who was unsuccessful in his fight against darker regimes, is now attempting to harm his only democratic ally in the Middle East.

"History shows there are events which create drastic changes in Israel's response. History will remember the UN Security Council's Resolution 2334 as the one which brought about Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. No decision will cause Israel to stop building on its own land," Hotovely concluded.


Uzi Baruch

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/222202

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Palestinians: The Nightmare of Christians - Khaled Abu Toameh




by Khaled Abu Toameh

To understand the severity of the situation is, let us recall that in the 1950s about 86% of the population of the Bethlehem area was Christian. Today, we are only 12%.

  • For the past four decades, Samir Qumsieh, who hails from a large and well-respected Christian family in the town of Bet Sahour, near Bethlehem, has fought for the rights of the region's miniscule Palestinian Christian minority. He has even dared to speak out against the subjugation of Christians living under the rule of Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
  • He regularly receives death threats, and he has been the target of a petrol bomb attack.
  • "The solution to extremism starts with the kindergarten, with elementary school. It begins with the churches, with the mosques and the school curricula. Curricula are very important – Jewish, Christian and Muslim ones. They should concentrate on accepting the 'other.' If this idea is adopted, the future generation will be liberal and open-minded." — Samir Qumsieh.
  • "Every day we hear and see some radical Muslim clerics speaking strongly against Christians. Just recently, one of the sheiks was saying that Christian Copts should be slaughtered like sheep. Where is the Egyptian security? If I were in charge of Egyptian security, I would have this sheikh arrested immediately, and have him rot in a dark underground cell." — Samir Qumsieh.
  • "To understand the severity of the situation is, let us recall that in the 1950s about 86% of the population of the Bethlehem area was Christian. Today, we are only 12%. In Israel, by contrast, we have 133,000 Christians and the figure is stable. Of course, I am worried about the future of Christians here." — Samir Qumsieh.
  • "I fear the day will come when our churches will become museums. is my nightmare." — Samir Qumsieh.
Without question, Samir Qumsieh is one of the most courageous Christian leaders in the Middle East. Qumsieh is one of the few willing to risk his life to speak out against Muslim persecution of Christians in the Palestinian territories and the Middle East, generally.

For the past four decades, Samir Qumsieh, who hails from a large and well-respected Christian family in the town of Bet Sahour, near Bethlehem, has fought for the rights of the region's miniscule Palestinian Christian minority. He has even dared to speak out against the subjugation of Christians living under the rule of Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

The plight of the Christians living under the Palestinian Authority and Hamas is a subject truly taboo. Yet Qumsieh perseveres – and pays the price. He regularly receives death threats, and he has been the target of a petrol bomb attack. Muslim extremists have also distributed leaflets in the Bethlehem area condemning him for his outspoken views and activities on behalf of persecuted Christians.


Samir Qumsieh.

However, the campaign of intimidation has not deterred Qumsieh from defending them.
In an exclusive interview with Gatestone Institute, the prominent Christian figure, who founded the private Nativity TV Station in Bet Sahour, accuses the Obama Administration of failing to combat ISIS and radical Islam. Qumsieh says he is convinced that President-elect Trump will "terminate" ISIS.

Qumsieh discloses that a "Muslim mafia" has been stealing Christian-owned lands in the Bethlehem area.

As a prominent Palestinian Christian figure in the living in the Middle East, how would you assess the Obama Administration's role in the war on ISIS?

President Obama is the spiritual father of ISIS. His administration and he were never serious about fighting ISIS. This is what I firmly believe, and many facts confirm my thoughts. When Obama saw that this was about to be exposed, he finally acted, but in a weak manner. He put out a ransom against (ISIS leader) Abu Baker Al-Baghdadi and started telling us that he had bombed ISIS, and so on.

How do you explain Obama's refusal to use the term radical Islam?

If you ask me, I will tell you the truth: I doubt that Obama is a Christian. Really, I doubt it. During his term, ISIS emerged, and the Christians have suffered heavily. Let me ask you a question. What is ISIS? Why is it that this mobilization of the whole world has not been able to eradicate them? Who can convince me? When America toppled Saddam Hussein, who had a very big and strong army, he collapsed. But when it comes to ISIS, how come they still exist?

Do you believe that President-elect Donald Trump will endorse a different stance toward ISIS?

Absolutely. Trump will obliterate ISIS. Had Hilary Clinton won, believe me ISIS would have continued and flourished. In my view, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is the 'father' of ISIS, and Clinton is its 'mother.'

I have a friend who is a painter. He paints portraits of presidents. He is a Muslim, by the way. We sent portraits to King Abdullah, to Mahmoud Abbas and the Pope. He painted a portrait of Obama in front of the Church of Nativity. He worked on it for two months and it cost a lot of money. When the portrait was presented to Obama through the US consul-general in Jerusalem, they did not bother to send a thank you letter to the painter, although I personally talked to the consulate about this. I told them, 'Gentlemen, this is shameful, at least send a thank-you letter to this man.' The consul-general at that time came to my office and took the portrait. Doesn't the painter deserve at least a thank-you letter?

Are you saying that Obama has not done anything to help Christians in the Middle East?

Nothing at all. As I said, I think he was not serious about fighting ISIS, which has harmed the Christians very badly.

In your opinion, what is the best way to fight religious extremism?
I have always said that the solution to extremism is not through the military or security. The solution to extremism starts with the kindergarten, with elementary school. It begins with the churches, with the mosques and the school curricula. Curricula are very important – Jewish, Christian and Muslim ones. They should concentrate on accepting the 'other.' If this idea is adopted, the future generation will be liberal and open-minded.

But isn't the turmoil and violence in the Middle East the result of religious extremism?

The current conflict in the entire region is a religious and sectarian war. Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are Sunni. They are against Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Alawite regime of Bashar Assad in Syria. So we are witnessing a religious and sectarian war. This is not only a conflict between Sunnis and Shias.

How do you feel as a Christian when you see what is happening to Christians in the Middle East, especially the recent bombing of a church in Egypt?

What is happening is extremely sad, especially the bombing of a church. I think the Egyptian authorities should act decisively. Every day we hear and see some radical Muslim clerics speaking strongly against Christians. Just recently, one of the sheiks was saying that Christian Copts should be slaughtered like sheep. Where is the Egyptian security? If I was in charge of Egyptian security, I would have this sheikh arrested immediately, and have him rot in a dark underground cell.

Are you aware of Palestinian Muslim clerics who also speak out against Christians?

Yes. This past Friday, one of the sheikhs at a mosque was speaking in a threatening way about Christians. He said that Muslim youths should not imitate Christian youths, and should not wish them well at Christmas. He also said that Muslims should not be doing business with Christians. The sheikh said some highly intimidating things about Christians.

Did the Christians protest against this incitement by the sheikh?

My cousin, who is a retired officer with the Palestinian Authority Intelligence Security Department, published something about the Friday sermon on Facebook. The following day he had to delete the post because it seems he received threats or something like that. When I told my cousin that I will talk with the Palestinian Authority attorney-general about it, he asked me not to talk to anyone. My cousin said, 'Please don't talk about this matter because we are 40 Christian families in that area (where the sheikh lives). It is clear to me that my cousin did receive threats, although he would not admit to it.

How would you describe relations between Christians and Muslims in the Bethlehem area?

Objectively speaking, there are millions of Muslims who are good people. I have many close Muslim friends whom I consider as my brothers. The problem is not Muslims. The real problem is radical Islam. In the Quran, there are various kinds of statements, and every Muslim, depending on his belief and attitude, selects what suits him. Some verses call for peace and describe Christians as the 'People of the Book' and good people. There are also verses that describe us as infidels and sinful folks. Everyone chooses what appeals to him. According to my humble knowledge, these verses are undated. I think that if they were dated, the fresh ones would supersede the old ones.

My understanding is that you have personally been the target of threats and violent attacks. Can you elaborate?

Yes, I have faced a great deal of harassment, and in 2006 I was even attacked with Molotov cocktails. Also, fliers that spoke against me have been distributed.

What is the main accusation against you? Why are some Muslims angry with you?

When I saw that there was encroachment on Christian-owned land here, I protested against it.

Is it true that Muslims have been illegally laying their hands on Christian property in Bethlehem?

We have a mafia here that is seizing Christian-owned lands. I protested against this Muslim mafia, and I even called a large gathering. I invited 80 people to my home. They included the elite of society – Muslims and Christians. They all joined my protest. That same night, fliers were distributed in Bethlehem threatening to kill me.

What has the Palestinian Authority done to help against you fight this mafia?

There are still many unresolved cases with regards to land encroachment. These cases are in the courts, but our judicial system is very slow. If you go to court, you have to wait 15-20 years. Recently, we have noticed that the encroachments decreased immensely because we have been talking to the Palestinian Authority and pressing them about the problem. Today, there are only a few cases like this taking place. We want all these cases to be solved.

Is there discrimination against Christians living under the Palestinian Authority?

One cannot say that there is official discrimination. President Abbas attends Christmas midnight mass, his prime minister attends the lighting of the Christmas tree. Still, I can simply say that among our people you will find some who harbor radical extremist thoughts. ISIS is a thought. There are Christians working in the Palestinian Authority, but not many. We have Christian mayors, and that is how it should be. Bethlehem, Bet Sahour and Bet Jala have Christian mayors, although some have been demanding that this be changed because Christians are a minority. Fortunately for us, the Palestinian Authority did not respond to these demands.

Do you believe that Christian leaders are doing enough to defend the interests of their people?

Frankly, I do not want the day to come when the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and the Church of the Nativity are turned into museums. Rather, I wish to seize this opportunity hope that it will encourage our leaders to tackle the problem and find a solution. Any Christian businessman who is interested in the general issue of Christians should come and invest here. We want them to build projects, including housing projects. We are also hoping that these projects will provide jobs for young Christians. The biggest problem we are facing is Christian emigration. Some Christians are helping, but this is being done on a very limited scale. But I cannot say that Christian patriarchates are doing their best. Some of them are far from the congregation and do not even care about us. We want wealthy Christians to come here and create project initiatives. It is not enough to say 'I love the Christians and I care about them.' This love should be demonstrated through deeds.

Are you worried about the growing number of Christians who are leaving the West Bank and Gaza Strip?

Once, 5,000 Christians lived in the Gaza Strip. When Hamas took over the Gaza Strip in 2006, Christians began to be harassed and discriminated against. Today, only 1,100 Christians live there. In the Bethlehem area, there are about 40,000 Christians. Altogether, there are about 42,000 Christians remaining in the West Bank. There are two reasons behind the dwindling figures. The first of these is the ongoing emigration, which is a nightmare for us; the second is the low birth rate among Christian families. To understand the severity of the situation is, let us recall that in the 1950s about 86% of the population of the Bethlehem area was Christian. Today, we are only 12%. In Israel, by contrast, we have 133,000 Christians and the figure is stable. Of course, I am worried about the future of Christians here. Looking at the facts on the ground, you can see that there is no future for the Christians here. We are melting; we are disappearing. I fear the day will come when our churches will become museums. That is my nightmare.
  • Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter

Khaled Abu Toameh, an award-winning journalist, is based in Jerusalem.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9634/palestinian-christians

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Obama's 'Midnight Regulation Express' - Rick Moran




by Rick Moran

The proposed regulations and executive orders are directly related to parts of the president's agenda that have been rejected by Congress and the American people

Kimberly Strassel has a great article in the Wall Street Journal that summarizes the actions taken by President Obama since the election designed to undermine the presidency of Donald Trump by piling thousands of new regulations and executive orders on the new president's desk, daring him to undo them.
She begins:
Barack Obama isn’t known for humility, though rarely has his lack of grace been more on display than in his final hours in office. The nation rejected his agenda. The president’s response? To shove more of that agenda down the nation’s gullet.
The proposed regulations and executive orders are directly related to parts of the president's agenda that have been rejected by Congress and the American people - most recently in the November presidential election. These "Midnight Regulations" are little more than a spiteful way for President Obama to give the middle finger to Trump and the American people.
The technical definition of a midnight regulation is one issued between Election Day and the inauguration of a new president. The practice is bipartisan. George W. Bush, despite having promised not to do so, pushed through a fair number of rules in his final months. But Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were more aggressive, and Mr. Obama is making them look like pikers.
Mr. Obama has devoted his last year to ramming through controversial and far-reaching rules. Whether it was born of a desire to lay groundwork for a Clinton presidency, or as a guard against a Trump White House, the motive makes no difference. According to a Politico story of nearly a year ago, the administration had some 4,000 regulations in the works for Mr. Obama’s last year. They included smaller rules on workplace hazards, gun sellers, nutrition labels and energy efficiency, as well as giant regulations (costing billions) on retirement advice and overtime pay.
Since the election Mr. Obama has broken with all precedent by issuing rules that would be astonishing at any moment and are downright obnoxious at this point. This past week we learned of several sweeping new rules from the Interior Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, including regs on methane on public lands (cost: $2.4 billion); a new anti-coal rule related to streams ($1.2 billion) and renewable fuel standards ($1.5 billion).
This follows Mr. Obama’s extraordinary announcement that he will invoke a dusty old law to place nearly all of the Arctic Ocean, and much of the Atlantic Ocean, off limits to oil or gas drilling. This follows his highly politicized move to shut down the Dakota Access pipeline in North Dakota. And it comes amid reports the administration is rushing to implement last-minute rules on commodities speculation, immigrant workers and for-profit colleges—among others.
Any action that is rushed is likely to be shoddy, especially if it’s from the federal government. The point is for Mr. Obama to have his way and to swamp the Trump administration with a dizzying array of new rules to have to undo. That diverts manpower from bigger and better priorities.
Trump transition people are bitterly complaining about a lack of cooperation from the executive departments. This foot dragging is slowing the transition process, which makes it less likely that Trump can hit the ground running on January 21. Instead, the new president will be forced to deal with a dizzying array of federal rules - most of which will end up in court anyway as businesses fight back against this federal government-wide power grab.

The bottom line: Obama and the Democrats do not recognize Donald Trump as the legitimate president of the United States and will do all in their power over the next four years to ensure the failure of his administration.


Rick Moran

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/12/obamas_midnight_regulation_express.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Stop Lying About Keith Ellison’s 11 Years With an Anti-Semitic Hate Group - Daniel Greenfield




by Daniel Greenfield


Keith Ellison is a liar and a racist.



Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Congressman Keith Ellison is a liar and a racist.

If you listen  to Ellison, which the media does, his time with the Nation of Islam, a violently racist and anti-Semitic hate group which believes that white people were created by a mad scientist and will be exterminated by UFOs, was a brief youthful mistake that he made back when he was a college student.

But Ellison appears to have been involved with the Nation of Islam for eleven years, from his time in law school to his early attempts at seeking public office, through his twenties and thirties.

Politico’s Glenn Thrush offers the aspiring DNC boss a platform in a puff piece and podcast which compares the extremist bigot’s “spiritual progression” to that of Martin Luther King Jr. Thrush prompts Ellison, “You were a young man” and asks him to explain his affinity for the racist hate group.

And right on cue, Keith Ellison begins distorting his own history. He cites the 1991 Rodney King case.

But Ellison was praising “Minister Farrakhan” and defending the Nation of Islam in 1989. Writing as “Keith Hakim”, he whined that the “sensational” news media smears the Nation of Islam as the “black Klu Klux Klan” so it never gets credit for “all of its laudable work.”

Keith Ellison doesn’t just defend the racist group and its leader. His rhetoric, denouncing Malcolm X for abandoning the “Honorable Elijah Muhammad’s legacy” is the sort of thing an NOI member would say.

And, back in 1989, Keith Ellison was already being condemned for anti-Semitism. The Minnesota Daily opinion editor, Michael Olenick, described Ellison’s writing as "a genuine threat to the long-term safety and well-being of the Jewish people, a threat that history dictates must not be ignored."

"Time and time again my people have been slaughtered after the words of Hakim (Ellison) and those like him influenced the masses," Olenick writes.

In a more recent comment, Olenick compared Ellison to David Duke.

Ellison tries to minimize his involvement to the Million Man March, claiming that he defended Farrakhan because it was important to “defend the person who called the March”.

But that was in 1995. Ellison was praising “Minister Farrakhan” as a liberator six years earlier. His affinity for the racist hate group predated Rodney King, the Million Man March and any other excuses.

Ellison now claims that he “came to learn that defense wasn’t deserved” and insists that he had decided to pursue a less bigoted approach in the 90s.

When was that?

In 1997, two years later, he was defending the Nation of Islam’s anti-Semitism and praising “Minister Farrakhan” as a “tireless servant of Black people”.

In 1998, Ellison ran for office as affiliated with the Nation of Islam on a platform of, among other things, having Nation of Islam thugs patrol neighborhoods. He complained about a “propaganda war” being waged against “Minister Louis Farrakhan”.

In 2000, five years later, Ellison is still referring to “Minister Farrakhan” and spewing NOI conspiracy theories.

“I had to account for things I had written as a college student,” Ellison whines. But he was arguing in defense of the Nation of Islam’s anti-Semitism in 1997. By then Keith was a lawyer with four children.

Keith Ellison had graduated from law school seven years earlier and from college, ten years earlier, in 1987. This was not something that he was doing as an immature college student.

Ellison complains that “some things they want to get me for” he had written back when he was younger than his 20-year-old daughter. Except that nobody has anything dating that far back. Instead the timeline developed by Scott Johnson at Powerline runs back to Ellison’s time in law school.

From 1989, when Ellison was a 26-year-old law student, married man and likely a father, to 1997, when he was an established professional, he was on record defending the Nation of Islam’s anti-Semitism. His own writings and statements suggest that he was affiliated with the hate group, from 1989 to 1998 and probably to 2000. He only publicly rejected the racist organization in 2006.

That means Keith Ellison was aligned with the Nation of Islam from as little as nine years to a more probable eleven years. It’s not impossible that he was with the hate group for much longer than that.

During this period, Ellison referred to its leader as “Minister Farrakhan”, praised the hate group, defended its bigotry and complained that the media was smearing the bigot in charge.

Keith Ellison has been lying about his involvement with the racist hate group since he ran for Congress.

In 2006, when running for Congress, he claimed that he had worked with “local members of the Nation of Islam” and other African-American leaders “over a decade ago” and "at no time did I ever share their hateful views... or approve their hateful statements directed at Jews."

Those are lies. Keith Ellison had defended Nation of Islam bigots from Khalid Abdul Muhammed (“that old no-good Jew, that old imposter Jew, that old hooked-nose, bagel-eating, lox-eating… just crawled out of the caves and hills of Europe, so-called damn Jew”) to Joanne Jackson ("Jews are among the most racist white people I know") through a large section of his early adult life.

And Keith Ellison is still lying.

Keith Ellison spent a likely eleven years of his life affiliated with a racist and anti-Semitic hate group. Since then he has lied about it and distorted his past. That alone should be disqualifying.

But has Ellison ever really ceased to be a bigot?

Ellison switched from the Nation of Islam’s brand of bigoted theology to a more mainstream Islamic bigoted theology. Even as he scrambles for the leadership of the DNC, his name appeared on a list of speakers at an MAS-ICNA convention in Chicago alongside Siraj Wahhaj, a former Nation of Islam member, an unindicted co-conspirator in the World Trade Center bombing, who declared, “I will never ever tell people don’t be violent that is not the Islamic way.  The violence has to be selected.”

Numerous figures supportive of Hamas will be there. As well as Sheikh Al-Nabulsi who called Jews the "worst enemies of Allah" and stated that "all the Jewish people are combatants" and could be killed.

After public outrage, Ellison’s name has vanished from the list of speakers. But he has a long history of associating Islamist groups. And the difference between the NOI and his new Islamist friends is that CAIR, ISNA and the MAS understand the value of subtlety. They want to build coalitions with the left to achieve their theocratic agendas instead of advocating the militant separatism of the Nation of Islam.

This does not mean that they are any less anti-Semitic or racist than Keith Ellison’s old friends.

Keith Ellison has also become more subtle. The mask slips, occasionally, in front of friendlier audiences, as it did in 2010, when Ellison claimed that Israel had “mobilized” the Jews to “do its bidding in America”. But the media is eager to dismiss his comments as mere “criticism” of Israel.

When lefties, Jewish or non-Jewish, defend Ellison, they are normalizing anti-Semitism.

The year that Keith Ellison made his public break with the Nation of Islam, he appeared at a CAIR fundraiser with CAIR boss Nihad Awad. CAIR has helped fund Ellison’s political ambitions and the two men are friends. Awad, who supported Hamas, even spoke at a fundraiser for Ellison.

Awad and CAIR are somewhat more subtle than Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, but not by that much. “Who is opposing the latest agreement with Iraq? Look at their names. Look at their ethnic, their ethnic or religious or racial background,” Awad once asked.

CAIR has invited a Holocaust denier to its conferences and distributed material calling Jews apes and pigs. But the media chooses not to see its bigotry, just as it chooses not to see Keith Ellison’s hate.

After abandoning his long association with one Islamic hate group, Keith Ellison switched his association to another Islamic hate group. He never did become a moderate. He just turned into a slicker extremist.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265229/stop-lying-about-keith-ellisons-11-years-anti-daniel-greenfield

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Obama Oil Drilling Ban on Thin Ice - Daniel John Sobieski




by Daniel John Sobieski

As the Washington Times notes, Obama thinks he can get away with it

President Obama apparently wants his legacy to be one of energy starvation for the United States and dependence on foreign energy from friendly places like Saudi Arabia and Iran. His ban on offshore drilling in federally owned waters off our Atlantic and Arctic coasts makes no sense, either environmentally or economically. As the Washington Times notes, Obama thinks he can get away with it:
Vowing that his successor won’t be able to reverse his actions, President Obama on Tuesday used executive authority to permanently ban new offshore drilling in federally owned waters off the Atlantic coast and in the Arctic Ocean.
Mr. Obama used authority in a section of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, a 1953 law, to ban the drilling. The law includes a provision that allows a president to put certain waters off-limits to oil and gas production.
The presidential authority was used in conjunction with similar actions by Canada, which also moved to prohibit drilling in its own Arctic waters. The U.S. move will ban drilling in the vast majority of American waters in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, in addition to areas off the Atlantic coast stretching from New England to Virginia.
It is ironic that a president who has used executive orders to get around laws now cites a 63-year-old law to justify an offshore drilling ban. Executive orders can be overturned with another executive order. And a 1953 law written when offshore and deep water drilling technology was in its infancy can be amended or repealed. Technology has advanced a lot since 1953. Hydraulic fracturing or fracking didn’t exist six decades ago. Oil drilling technology is safer, more advanced and requires a smaller footprint.

America needs this offshore energy, unless Obama wants us to be permanent vassals of OPEC. According to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas off Alaska contain an estimated 23.6 billion barrels of oil and 104.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. According to the American Petroleum Institute’s website Energy Tomorrow, offshore drilling could create 840,000 American jobs and generate @200 billion in revenue to the federal government by 2035. As the Daily Caller reports:
Offshore drilling in the Atlantic Ocean has the potential to produce 1.3 million barrels of oil and natural gas per day while generating nearly 280,000 jobs and contribute up to $23.5 billion per year to the U.S. economy, according to a 2013 study by the American Petroleum Institute.
And what about the environmental impact to these allegedly fragile ecosystems? What about the polar bears and the caribou? We heard this apocalyptic song before, when oil was discovered at Prudhoe Bay and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline was built to carry it southward. When oil exploration began in Prudhoe Bay, 60 miles to the west of ANWR, environmentalists claimed it would yield only a "few months' supply" of oil and would wreck the ecosystem. Prudhoe Bay turned out to be the largest deposit of oil ever found in North America. As Stephen Moore of the Heritage Foundation writes in the Daily Signal:
Would oil and gas drillers kill off the eagles, caribou, and polar bears, as the White House warns? These were the arguments made more than 40 years ago against building the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System -- which carries oil from Alaska’s North Slope to the port of Valdez for shipment to the lower 48 states. Over the last 35 years it has carried more than 17 billion barrels of oil, a quantity worth nearly $1 trillion in today’s dollars. At the time, the Sierra Club moaned that the pipeline would mean “the wilderness is forever broken,” while the Wilderness Society said the project would lead to “imminent, grave and irreparable damage to the ecology, wilderness values, natural resources, recreational potential, and total environment of Alaska.” No bird or caribou would be safe from the carnage. Sound familiar?
Instead, the impact on Alaska’s wildlife and natural beauty has been almost nonexistent. A study delivered in 2002 to the American Society of Civil Engineers found that “the ecosystems affected by the operation of TAPS and associated activity for almost 25 years are healthy.” Today the size of the caribou herd in Alaska is estimated at about 325,000 -- four times the number before the pipeline was built.
Despite those photos of polar bears clinging in seeming desperation to small pieces of ice, they are in no danger of extinction, whether from oil drilling or from climate change, as reported in the Daily Caller:
“They appear to be as abundant and as productive as ever, in most populations,” Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a polar bear expert with more than 30 years of experience who teaches at Lakehead University in Canada, told the Roy Green Show….
Today, there are significantly more polar bears than there were 40 years ago, despite the animal being listed under the Endangered Species act in 2008 over fears global warming would destroy its Arctic habitat. Official estimates put the total number of bears between 20,000 and 25,000, but this number is really just a “qualified guess” and the actual number is likely higher…
“[T]hey’ve said that polar bears were declining in Western Hudson Bay, subsequent surveys showed they were wrong … said polar bears were declining in Western Hudson Bay and polar bears are not declining there, polar bears are staying about the same,” Taylor said. “They’re -- they’re warning that this will happen, that no-one is seeing it happen yet.”
“And for us, living up in the north, where 365 days a year – you know, climate has been evolving over a number of years, bears have been around for hundreds of thousands of years and they’ve gone through various cycles of climate change,” echoed Gabriel Nirlungayuk, the Deputy Minister of the Environment in Nunavut.
“But in my lifetime, anyhow, we haven’t -- I have yet to see declining of polar bears, of climate change,” Gabriel told the Roy Green Show. “And one is Western Hudson Bay, which was projected to be in decline 20 years ago -- up to now, it should be less than 300 bears but we’re seeing that the numbers have not really changed.”
Obama’s Arctic drilling ban has nothing to do with polar bears, caribou, or fragile ecosystems. They are fine and are not threatened. It has everything to do with ideology and an irrational animus towards fossil fuels. It is about climate change zealots clinging on to their inconvenient falsehoods as desperately as those polar bears were said to be clinging to their ice. 


Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.


Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/12/obama_oil_drilling_ban_on_thin_ice.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Passover Punishment Case Continues to Wander Through the Courts - Edwin Black




by Edwin Black

A grotesque distortion of the Civil Rights act. It's apparently okay to mandate that a man [who says he feels like a woman] has the right to use the women's bathroom, but an Orthodox Jew is punished by the authorities for taking vacation days on a Jewish holiday. However, Years of legal frustration may be finally coming to an end.

Susan Abeles’ saga began in 2013 when she took time off to observe the last two days of Passover, just as she had done annually for the past 26 years. During those years, Abeles, an Orthodox Jew, worked for the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA), mainly as a data specialist. The MWAA is the governmentally-created public body that oversees Reagan National Airport in the District of Columbia and Dulles International Airport in Virginia. In 2013, the MWAA stunned Abeles by suddenly labeling her annual Passover time off as “AWOL” absenteeism. The charge arose not because Abeles failed to notify her supervisors in advance, which she did multiple times in writing, but because the authority disapproved of how she reminded her supervisor, who was also on leave and could not be reached.

To punish Abeles, the MWAA slapped her with a five-day suspension without pay. Shaken, Abeles saw the action by her employer as a clear infringement of her religious rights prompted solely because she took time for the Jewish holiday. The last two days of the eight-day holiday are considered holy days to all observant Jews throughout America who abstain from work those days. Due to the suspension, Abeles’ felt compelled to take involuntary retirement rather than endure what she has termed continued “harassment on account of her religious faith.”

For years, Abeles was told to routinely schedule her religious days off via various ordinary direct means, including use of the official Outlook calendar utilized by her department. In 2013, the MWAA required an advance verbal approval from Abeles’ immediate supervisor. Even though Abeles, as in prior years, provided her supervisors in advance a complete list of all the days she would be out for religious holidays in 2013, her immediate supervisor was on leave the last work day prior to the end of Passover and was not available to acknowledge the final submitted request. So Abeles did the next best thing, she sent an email reminder to both her supervisor and her supervisor’s supervisor. The ranking supervisor promptly acknowledged the reminder with a reply email stating “thanks.” Despite these efforts, Abeles was still punished.

In May 2015, after Abeles left the MWAA, she sued the authority and her two supervisors, Valerie O’Hara and Julia Hodge, in Federal Court. Famed Jewish civil rights attorneys Nathan Lewin and daughter Alyza Lewin took up her cause. The Lewins charged violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Defending the MWAA and its supervisors is Morris Kletzkin of the Washington D.C. firm Friedlander Misler and other attorneys.

The lower court dismissed the case, asserting Abeles had been properly penalized. The Lewins appealed. On December 8, 2016, the case was argued before the Federal Appeals court in Richmond Virginia, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III presiding. Several dozen local Yeshiva students, both girls and boys, who had heard about the controversy, jammed the courtroom to hear the legal case for penalizing Abeles for what she had been doing for more than two decades—taking her annual Passover leave.

Abeles legal claim involves a 1973 amendment to the Civil Rights Act that requires private employers to make a “reasonable accommodation” for employees’ religious observances, as well as the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. MWAA has contended that neither the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act provisions or its Virginia state equivalent apply to it. The authority claims that although its board is appointed by the President of the United States, the governors of Virginia and Maryland, as well as the mayor of the District of Columbia, it is not subject to either the federal or Virginia laws protecting religious freedom against infringements upon religious observance.

The Authority’s defense has revolved around the minutia of workplace process because Abeles had not followed precise verbal procedures in this instance. For its part, the MWAA openly took the position in prior filings that Abeles, despite her 26 years of loyal service, “was a long-term, albeit mediocre, employee.” By utilizing the years-long procedure of email and official Outlook calendar postings in 2013, and not verbally reminding her direct supervisor and getting oral approval, Abeles was guilty of “insubordination,” the defendants argued. The Authority’s brief even denigrated Abeles’ legal arguments as “most bizarre.”

The oral arguments in Richmond lasted about an hour. After much debate about arcane job procedures, an exasperated Nathan Lewin finally declared: “Your Honor, I'm an Orthodox Jew. When I've worked for people, I've given them a list of what the Jewish holidays are at the beginning of the year. And they know that means I'm going to be out for those days. This is a phony response by [the company] saying ‘we didn't know why you would be out.’ Of course, they knew why she was out. Everybody in the whole company knew that she was a Sabbath observer and for 26 years had been absent on Jewish holidays. She listed all the Jewish holidays at the beginning of the year. And, suddenly, to penalize her even though she has listed them and has notified her supervisors on the day before she was gone—we submit that's outrageous.”


After the hearing, Lewin addressed the assembled Yeshiva students in the corridor, reminding them that in the real world Orthodox Jews are not expected to secure signed notices before they take off for holidays.

The American Jewish Committee, the National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs (COLPA), The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, have all filed amicus briefs on behalf of Abeles. COLPA argued that if the lower court’s adverse ruling “is adopted, a significant number of Sabbath observers might find it impossible to maintain their jobs and remain faithful to the dictates of their conscience.” Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel of the Becket Fund, quipped, “It takes some chutzpah for the government to punish a Jewish woman for celebrating Passover. It takes even more chutzpah to say that they are the only government agency in DC exempt from our civil rights laws.”       
         
Immediately after the oral arguments in Richmond, attorney Kletzkin was contacted by phone, refused to answer any questions, and did not respond to this reporter’s email. Bruce Heppen, MWAA associate general counsel, refused to take a call on the case. Craig Marlow, a staffer in Heppen’s office referred calls to MWAA media relations, which did not reply to a voice mail message. Another media duty officer, Rob Yingling, issued a terse comment stating, “The Airports Authority does not comment on pending litigation.” 

Asked how she felt after years of frustration in the case, Abeles stated, “My Jewish faith is an integral part of who I am and that includes observing Passover. I worked at the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority for twenty-six years and provided to various supervisors the same advance notice of all Jewish holidays without incident. It is saddening that despite following the same protocol I had each year, I was put on AWOL and suspended for five days which drove me to retire early for simply practicing my faith.”

Nathan Lewin said if needed he might appeal the case to the United States Supreme Court. “This is the ultimate plain denial of religious observance by an employer. Abeles gave plenty of notice and she got ambushed by her employer.” He added, “If this case is not illegal, then no such case will be illegal.”


Edwin Black is the New York Times bestselling author of IBM and the Holocaust, Financing the Flames and The Farhud. He can be found at www.edwinblack.com.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265220/passover-punishment-case-continues-wander-through-edwin-black

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Season of Living Dangerously - Lloyd Billingsley




by Lloyd Billingsley


How the outgoing president has made our holidays hazardous.




Obama is the “most loquacious” president ever, George Will said on Fox News on Monday. Will then challenged guests Mercedes Schlapp and Charles Lane to recall something memorable the president had said. Nothing emerged, probably because broadcast time was running short.

After all, the outgoing president did make some memorable statements and some come to mind at this time of year, when Islamic terrorists are killing innocents by driving trucks into holiday crowds packed with women and children.

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” the president said in 2012.

That will be particularly memorable to Muslims, who construe anything less than worshipful of their prophet to be a “slander.” If a Muslim knows that the President of the United States, the most powerful man in the world, believes the future “must not” – a moral imperative – belong to such people, that could easily encourage violence against those perceived as slanderous of Islam’s prophet.

Muslims are also well aware that Obama refuses to mention Islam in connection with terrorism. If Muslims know that the President of the United States, the most powerful man in the world, will hold their religion blameless, that could easily encourage violence against non-Muslims.

During the past eight years, Islamic terrorists have inflicted much violence against non-Muslims in the United States. On November 5, 2009, at Ford Hood, Texas, U.S. soldiers were getting their final medical checkups before deploying to Afghanistan. Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist and self-proclaimed “Solider of Allah” began gunning down the soldiers, yelling “Allahu akbar,” as he killed.

His victims, all unarmed, included Francheska Velez, a 21-year-old private from Chicago who pleaded for the life of her unborn child. The Muslim major killed two other women that day along with 10 men, more than twice as many victims as the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. Hasan also wounded 33 others, including Sergeant Alonzo Lunsford, who played dead then fled the building. Major Hasan chased down Lunsford, an African-American, and shot him seven times, including one bullet in the back.

The Obama administration proclaimed this terrorist murder spree a case of “workplace violence,” an absurdity for the ages. With a Muslim perpetrator, the president could not even bring himself to call the murders an example “gun violence,” which he readily uses with non-Muslim perpetrators such as the Sandy Hook shooter.

In September 2012, Muslims attacked the U.S. compound in Benghazi killing four Americans including ambassador Chris Stevens. “That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world,” the President of the United States told the UN on September 25, 2012. “Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video,” the president said,” calling it “an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well.”

The President of the United States, the most powerful man in the world, and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, were willing to blame a terrorist attack on a video perceived to be an “insult” to Muslims. That could easily encourage Muslims to step up attacks on non-Muslims, particularly Christians and Jews, during the holiday season.

Readers of The Audacity of Hope learn that the president attended a “predominantly Muslim” school in Indonesia. That could explain, at least in part, why he goes easy on Muslims who perpetrate violence, and refuses to connect Islam with terrorism.

The president also wants to admit more Islamic refugees, whether or not they are sufficiently vetted. Consider, for example, Abdul Razak Ali Artan, the Muslim refugee from Somalia, who recently rammed his car into a building at Ohio State University then began stabbing people, injuring 13.

Readers of the president’s Dreams from My Father will find no criticism of the Nation of Islam, which holds that a mad scientist named Yacub created people of no color such as William Wilberforce, Leonardo Da Vinci and Eleanor Roosevelt on the Isle of Patmos 6,000 years ago. Racists and anti-Semites might find that encouraging, and there was plenty of Islamic terrorism before the Dreams book came out in 1995.

For example, at the Munich Olympics in 1972 Palestinian terrorists massacred 11 Israeli athletes. The author of Dreams from My Father prefers to look the other way and readers find no condemnation of other terrorist acts such as the Achille Lauro hijacking and the murder of Leon Klinghoffer.  Such memorable omissions could easily encourage Muslims seeking to perpetrate violence at mass gatherings during holidays, just as they targeted sporting events such as the Boston Marathon.

Meanwhile, during this year’s lighting of the national Christmas tree, the president and First Lady wished everybody a “merry Christmas.” If it turns out that way, it won’t be due to anything the president has said or done over the past eight years.

Muslim or otherwise, those who seek to harm the United States and kill Americans will have their best opportunity while the current president is still in office. The time from now until January 20 will be the season of living dangerously.


Lloyd Billingsley is the author of Barack ‘em Up: A Literary Investigation, and Bill of Writes: Dispatches from the Political Correctness Battlefield.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265232/season-living-dangerously-lloyd-billingsley

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Saudis at the UN Human Rights Council - Giulio Meotti




by Giulio Meotti

The UN and the Western democracies are putting the defense of human rights and freedom in the hands of one the world's worst violators of religious and intellectual freedom.

  • While the medieval Saudi system of justice was flogging the gentle blogger Raif Badawi 50 out of the stipulated 1000 lashes, a delegation of UN bureaucrats landed in Jeddah to promote an international conference on religious freedom.
  • The Saudis use these international seats to advance their oppressive agenda, and to press the Western democracies to punish criticism of Islam.
  • Through the shameful trial of Geert Wilders, Dutch authorities sent a message of surrender to the Saudis and other rogue Islamic regimes that punish dissent.
  • Did the Dutch prosecute Wilders on behalf of the Saudis, who threatened to impose sanctions on the Netherlands?
  • The UN and the Western democracies are putting the defense of human rights and freedom in the hands of one the world's worst violators of religious and intellectual freedom.
  • Sharia courts are already fully operating in the Netherlands. They know something about "human rights": stoning, flogging and chopping off heads.
  • Who will rescue our right to speak?
"My husband has been languishing in a Saudi prison since June 17th, 2012. Our children live with me in the city of Sherbrooke, Québec in Canada. They have not seen their father for five years now... On January 9, 2015, Raif received the first 50 lashes... Will members of the United Nations Human Rights Council join the European Parliament and ask for Raif's release?"
Unfortunately, the UN members did not respond to this appeal by Ensaf Haidar, the fearless wife of the most famous blogger of the Arab world, the gentle Raif Badawi, imprisoned and flogged by the Saudis for his secular ideas. A few days after Ensaf's appeal, the United Nations welcomed Badawi's executioners, the Saudis, at the UN Human Rights Council. The Saudi representative, Abdulaziz Alwasil, will be decisive on three major issues at the UN Palace of Nations in Geneva: women, religious freedom and the system of justice.

What a great achievement for Saudi Arabia: The country flogs poets and bloggers, and its sheikhs have no other concern than filling their sumptuous palaces with wives and concubines, and then stoning them to death if they become "adulterous". Saudi Arabia is where a Shiite cleric was publicly beheaded and where a Christian cannot wear a tunic or a cross.

The British government supported the Saudi bid to be re-elected at the Human Rights Council (British Prime Minister Theresa May was urged in vain to oppose the Saudi election to the Geneva body). The Obama Administration did the same: Samantha Powers, the U.S. ambassador at the UN, called the Saudi bid at the UN a "procedural position".

Hillel Neuer, the director of UN Watch, captured the difference between realpolitik and the betrayal of Western values when he said: "Making an alliance with Stalin to stop Hitler is one thing; it's quite another to say Stalin is a champion of human rights".

A few days after the Saudi bid at the UN Human Rights Council, the Kingdom and the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights held a two-day workshop in the Saudi capital to discuss the "evolution of the concept of human rights in the framework of international and regional human rights systems". Evolution of the concept human rights? Ask Raif Badawi, he knows better than the UN bureaucrats.


Raif Badawi and his children, before he was jailed.

The Saudis use these international seats to advance their oppressive agenda, and to press the Western democracies to punish criticism of Islam. The Saudis, in fact, considered curbing trade with the Netherlands over Geert Wilders, who has just been found guilty in a court in The Hague for "inciting discrimination and insulting a minority group". By asking at a public rally if people wanted "fewer Moroccans" in the Netherlands, Wilders was publicly declaring his alarm over the exploding crime rate by Moroccan Muslims in the country.

Through this shameful trial, the Dutch authorities sent a message of surrender to the Saudis and other rogue Islamic regimes which punish dissent. Did the Dutch prosecute Wilders on behalf of the Saudis, who threatened to impose sanctions on the Netherlands? It was reported that the Council of Saudi Chambers received a letter from higher Saudi authorities urging it not to involve Dutch companies in local projects either directly or indirectly.

The Saudis, through the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), have been pivotal in advancing the non-binding U.N. Resolution 62/154, "Combating defamation of religions", which extends protection to opinions and to ideas, and grants people immunity from being "offended".

This is exactly what happened with Wilders: he was on trial for stating his opinion, that there should be "fewer Moroccans" in the Netherlands. Some people said they were offended by that. Oddly, however, no one appears to have been offended by much worse remarks, said by politicians from the "Left":
  • "We also have sh*t Moroccans over here." Rob Oudkerk, Dutch Labour Party (PvDA) politician.
  • "We must humiliate Moroccans." Hans Spekman, PvDA politician.
  • "Moroccans have the ethnic monopoly on trouble-making." Diederik Samsom, PvDA politician.
The United Nations and the Western democracies are putting the defense of human rights and freedom in the hands of one the world's worst violators of religious and intellectual freedom. Middle East expert Paul Marshall blasted the "ongoing campaign by the Saudi-based Organization of the Islamic Conference which has given the anti-blasphemy movement weight and traction".

While the medieval Saudi system of justice was flogging the gentle blogger Raif Badawi 50 out of 1000 lashes, a delegation of UN bureaucrats landed in Jeddah to promote an international conference on religious freedom. No, it is not a joke. Joachim Rücker, President of the UN Human Rights Council, was photographed smiling side by side with the Wahhabi Islamic guardians. The Obama Administration sent two envoys to the Saudi conference, the ambassador for religious freedom, David Saperstein, and Arsalan Suleman, an envoy at the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Also attending was Heiner Bielefeldt, the UN special envoy for religious freedom, a noted scholar of Immanuel Kant (how did the Enlightenment collapse so far, so fast?).

Women, Christians, secular bloggers, Western "blasphemers", brave Dutch MPs: be warned! The muttawayyin, the Saudi religious police patrolling the Kingdom's streets to ensure respect for the Koran, are already in Europe's streets. Just ask France's satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo.

A few days after 12 people were butchered at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, as well as four Jews at a grocery store, Saudi officials were allowed to march in Paris along with the terrorists' victims and world leaders. And the Saudis had just flogged a blogger for "blasphemy". Will Geert Wilders be next? Sharia courts are already fully operating in the Netherlands. They know something about "human rights": stoning, flogging and chopping off heads.

But who will rescue our right to speak?

Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9628/saudis-human-rights-council

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.