Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Mosque Uses Lawsuit to Abolish Zoning Power of Small California Community - Georgine Scott-Codiga

by Georgine Scott-Codiga

For Muslims, "Cordoba" is a symbol of religious revenge and domination.

In a small rural area of Santa Clara County California lies a geographically unique area of land called San Martin, close to, but not of, Silicon Valley.

In 1981 the Board of Supervisors established the San Martin Planning Advisory Committee (SMPAC), the only entity of its kind in the county, to give local residents and land owners a voice in decisions affecting San Martin. Members were appointed by the Board of Supervisors to review interim land use policies, the San Martin Water Quality Study, and to make recommendation to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors on land use matters of interest to the San Martin Community.

Special care was taken to protect these unique rural agricultural areas, rich in important resources, agriculture, mineral deposits, forests, and wildlife. Two years later the Board adopted ‘Special Area Plans’ to its General Plan. These policies limited overall growth and development in rural areas limiting them to non-urban low-density uses that supported the needs of the local community. The Plan sought to minimize the demand for public services (i.e. roads, Sheriff, postal, crime, graffiti control, etc.) and the cost to the general public for providing and maintaining these undeveloped rural areas.

In 2006, the South Valley Islamic Center proposed to build Cordoba Center (Cordoba) in the San Martin planning area. In 2011 Cordoba’s project description proposed a 5,000 sq. ft. mosque, 5,000 sq. ft. multipurpose hall, 1-2 covered patios for group picnic, bathrooms for picnic/retreat area.

The tight knit community of San Martin rallied together rejecting the project. They commented at numerous public meetings how the project was too large; unsustainable environmentally; uncharacteristic to San Martin; and that it violated the longtime ‘Local-Serving’ ordinances implemented decades earlier. Traditional Muslim beliefs forbid non-Muslims from being buried in their cemeteries and since less than 1/10th of 1% of the local residents are Muslim, Cordoba wasn’t considered to be of a ‘Local-Serving’ nature to the community.

Cordoba’s documents were scrutinized. Previous owners of Cordoba’s parcels had abandoned building permits due to failed percolation tests. Decades of observations by residents attested to flooding on the property and reported reverse direction of water flow, contradicting reports in Cordoba’s documents.

Cordoba’s application was on the heels of the San Martin perchlorate contamination. The Olin Corp. had improperly dumped toxic chemicals into the soil polluting hundreds of San Martin wells, forcing residents to rely on bottled water for years, some still doing so. This made the safety of the residents’ drinking water a priority when questioning Cordoba’s septic system and proposed ‘green’ cemetery. Almost all of San Martin residents rely on well water as their only source of drinking water. With no city water company or piped in water available, understandably, water is a major concern.

Muslim custom is to bury their dead directly into the ground without caskets or embalming. “Green” or natural cemeteries started popping up in the U.S. in 2007. A fairly recent addition, and with all neighboring entities to current green cemeteries having piped in city water available to them, there aren’t any studies on the effects of green burials (i.e, decaying bodies directly exposed to the soil) on nearby wells. Understandably, San Martin residents, demanded studies showing Cordoba’s proposed cemetery would be safe to their drinking water. To date, no studies have been provided.

In 2012, the County somehow excused Cordoba from obtaining an Environmental Impact Report (E.I.R.), allowing them to go forward with only a Mitigated Negative Declaration. A Negative Declaration is a document that states upon completion of an initial study that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. In contrast, an E.I.R. is an informational document that informs the public agency/public of significant environmental effects of a project, possible ways to minimize them and reasonable alternatives.

Local residents, noting the County’s willful desertion of its duty to protect and enforce the ordinances enacted to preserve their ‘Special Area’, filed a lawsuit against the County and Cordoba. The lawsuit resulted in Cordoba withdrawing its application, and executing a settlement agreement mandating it obtain an E.I.R. if they refiled.

Cordoba, apparently not willing to build anywhere else; i.e. in an urban area of the County devoid of numerous ‘Special Area’ ordinances or other restrictions on noise, traffic, septic, building design, etc., instead threatened to sue the County for violating federal RLUIPA law (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act). In 2000, Congress unanimously passed RLIUPA to prevent governments from placing an excessive burden on religious organizations in zoning and land marking laws. RLUIPA ensures religious institutions must be treated as well as comparable secular institutions. (Note that the County website for the proposed zoning changes includes a link to RLUIPA.)

County Planning Staff was asked to identify the substantial burden that was placed on Cordoba. Staffs’ response was “This language (i.e. Local Serving) may impose a burden on the practice of religion for uses that are subject to the ‘Local Serving’ policies.”

“May” impose? The ordinances in question have existed for over three decades since the 1980 General Plan. They have been applied equally to every applicant, religious and non-religious.

The sudden changes to remove language that “may” violate RLUIPA but definitely will disenfranchise an entire community poses the question: What is motivating such radical changes to accommodate this one project? 

Let’s follow the money. According to a document submitted to County Planning by South Valley Islamic Center “The cost of the proposed Cordoba Center project will be 100% paid for through a combination of donations by the SVIC membership and a generous grant from the Islamic Society of North America.”

Dr. Michael Waller, Annenberg Professor of International Communication at the Institute of World Politics and expert on the political warfare of terrorist groups, testified before the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security on October 14, 2003. Dr. Waller stated “An organ of ISNA, the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) has physical control of most mosques in the United States. NAIT finances, owns, and otherwise subsidizes the construction of mosques and is reported to own between 50 and 79 percent of the mosques on the North American continent.”

(NAIT) was founded in 1973 by the Muslim Students’ Association of the United States and Canada (MSA) and backed by the Muslim Brotherhood. Both NAIT and ISNA were named unindicted co-conspirators in the 2007-2008 Holy Land Foundation trial.

At trial, the evidence showed ISNA diverted funds from the accounts it held with NAIT to institutions linked to Hamas and to Mousa Abu Marzook, (a Hamas leader). Other evidence presented “established that ISNA and NAIT were among those organizations created by the U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood.” Prosecutors presented copies of checks made out for hundreds of thousands of dollars and drawn from ISNA’s account and deposited in the Holy Land Foundation’s account with NAIT made payable to “the Palestinian Mujahadeen,” the original name for Hamas’ military wing.

Now that we’ve established this isn’t just your local religious organization desiring to build a little mosque in small town San Martin, but instead a once proposed project of 8,250 sq. ft. that has transformed into a 105,456 sq. ft. monstrosity funded by unindicted co-conspirators of terrorism, ISNA and NAIT, and friends of the Muslim Brotherhood. (see chart below)


Religious Prayer Hall (Mosque 5,000 sq. ft.)

Mosque Two Story 8,938 sq. ft.
(+ 3,938 sq. ft.)
Multi-purpose Hall (5,000 sq. ft.)
(revised 8-2-12 to 2,800 sq. ft.)
Community Bldg: Two story 14,548 sq. ft.
(+ 11,748 sq. ft.)
1-2 covered patios Plaza: 15,000 sq. ft.
Bathrooms for the picnic area
(revised 8-2-12 to 2 bldgs. Total = 450 sq. ft.)
Outdoor bathhouses: two (2) @ 390 sq. ft. ea (+330 sq. ft.)
Cemetery: 2-acre Cemetery: 3.55 acre (4,260 graves)
Parking Lot:
(revised 8-2-12 total of 41 spaces)
Parking Lot: 90 spaces
(+ 50 spaces)

Maintenance Bldg: 2,454 sq. ft.

Caretaker’s Dwelling: 3,380 sq. ft. single-family dwelling

Youth Camp: 16,500 sq. ft. (0.38 acre)

Playfield and Playground 20,520 sq. ft.

Orchard: 0.6-acre area 26,136 sq. ft.

Total = 8,250 sq. ft. Total = 105,456 sq. ft. (+97,456 sq. ft.)

At the October 4, 2016 Board of Supervisors’ meeting, the Board postponed voting to adopt the one-year status report relating to implementation of the local-serving amendments, sending them back to Planning Staff for additional work. Residents presented the Board with a petition containing 474 signatures once again opposing the Local-Serving changes.

Unlike most local neighborhood churches, ‘Cordoba’ by its own admission, restricts participation in most of its activities to Muslims. Non-Muslims are restricted from burial in Cordoba’s proposed cemetery. How ironic is it that ‘Cordoba’ demands the community comply with its restrictions on limited use of its facilities, yet as it bulldozes its way into the small rural village of San Martin, ‘Cordoba’ demands the County and its residents abolish the decades-long existing ordinances limiting growth & development to the needs of the local community in order to accommodate ‘Cordoba?’

The proposed changes to the Local-Serving Ordinances accommodate one project, Cordoba. The ramifications, however, affect an entire community and the entire unincorporated area of Santa Clara County. The once protected area of San Martin, where families relied on ‘Special Plans’ and ordinances to preserve the investments they made generations ago are now gone. Their agricultural country style of living off the land in an undeveloped quiet rural area is gone because of one project, Cordoba. Cordoba abolished local-serving zoning ordinances and at the same time abolished an entire community’s lifestyle. It’s no wonder that according to a recent study at Chapman University that almost half of the respondents said they would be uncomfortable with a mosque being built in their neighborhood.

Georgine Scott-Codiga

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/10/mosque_uses_lawsuit_to_abolish_zoning_power_of_small_california_community.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

WikiLeaks: Morocco pledged $12M to Clinton Foundation for lecture - Erez Linn, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff

by Erez Linn, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff

King Mohammed VI paid around $12 million to guarantee a Clinton Foundation event in Morocco with Hillary Clinton as keynote speaker, new WikiLeaks hacks suggests • "She created this mess and she knows it," leaked email by Clinton aide Huma Abedin says.

King Mohammed VI of Morocco and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton [Archive]
Photo credit: Reuters

WikiLeaks released new hacked emails from Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's campaign account over the weekend, alleging that King Mohammed VI of Morocco paid some $12 million to the Clinton Foundation on condition that it would hold a conference in Morocco in May 2015 with her as the keynote speaker.

According to Wikileaks, the hacked emails come from Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta, and show a correspondence between him and her top aide, Huma Abedin.

"No matter what happens, she will be in Morocco hosting CGI [Clinton Global Initiative] on May 5-7, 2015. Her presence was a condition for the Moroccans to proceed so there is no going back on this," Abedin wrote in the 2014 email.

Several months later, Abedin wrote that the conference, scheduled a month after Clinton announced her run for the presidency, would undermine her candidacy.

"It will break a lot of china to back out now when we had so many opportunities to do it in the past few months. She created this mess and she knows it," Abedin wrote.

Eventually, Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton, and their daughter Chelsea attended in her place while she campaigned in Nevada and California.

Clinton's campaign accused Moscow of being behind the hack, accusing Russian President Vladimir Putin of attempting to tip the scale of the U.S. elections in Republican nominee Donald Trump's favor.

AP recently reported that Clinton has met with numerous donors while serving as the secretary of state between 2009 and 2013, with aim of raising money for her foundation. One of the latest emails released by WikiLeaks alleges that Qatar offered Bill Clinton a donation of $1 million to the Clinton Foundation for his birthday. 

Meanwhile, WikiLeaks posted a message on Twitter reinforcing Trump's claim that the current U.S. election round was "rigged" and even suggested that Trump himself was part of this conspiracy, as Clinton and the media sought to have Trump win the primaries to bring the Republican party to a record low. 

"There is no U.S. election. There is power consolidation. Rigged primary, rigged media and rigged 'pied piper' candidate drive consolidation," the WikiLeaks tweet read. 

Erez Linn, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=37351

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Hillary vs. The Education of American Children - Michael Cutler

by Michael Cutler

What Clinton's proposed amnesty for illegal aliens would really do.

Two recurrent claims made by Hillary Clinton are that she will stand with American families against powerful interests and corporations and that she will increase spending on educating children to help them succeed.

These populist promises may resonate with many Americans.  However, as my mom used to say, “Actions speak louder than words."

Hillary Clinton's grandiose plans to provide unknown numbers of illegal aliens with lawful status would make her other promises impossible to keep.

During the last debate she stated that she would do whatever she needs to do so that workers will have good jobs with rising incomes.

However, for Hillary and the administration, American workers literally don't count.

Today tens of millions of working-age Americans have left the labor force and are not counted by the Labor Department when it provides unemployment statistics.  In point of fact, each month the United States admits more foreign workers than the number of new jobs that are created.

Legalizing millions of new foreign workers would serve to flood the labor pool with many more authorized workers, providing unfair competition for beleaguered American workers, especially within the low income sector.  Under the principle of “Supply & Demand” flooding a market with a commodity drives down the value of that commodity.  Labor is not unlike any other commodity such as petroleum, steel or aluminum.

It is a bit ironic that during the third and final debate Hillary Clinton attacked Trump, alleging that he had used steel and aluminum that had been “dumped” in the United States by China.  Dumping is an economic crime when it involves dumping a large quantity of a commodity into the marketplace in order to artificially reduce the value of that commodity.  This is precisely what the open-border policies that Clinton promises to not only continue, but expand, where the commodity of foreign labor is concerned.

I have written numerous articles about how Clinton's proposed massive amnesty program would undermine national security and the U.S. economy.

Two such articles were, “Hillary Clinton’s Immigration Goals Would Irrevocably Undermine National Security” and “Hillary Clinton’s Immigration Goals Make Her Economic Promises Impossible to Achieve.”

What has not been considered or discussed by the media or politicians is the impact that Clinton's immigration policies would have on the ability of schools to teach children in America -- the same children Hillary Clinton claims to be so concerned about.

If millions or, more likely, tens of millions of illegal aliens were suddenly granted lawful status, they would immediately have the absolute and unequivocal right to apply to have all of their minor children be lawfully admitted into the United States.  They would then be enrolled in school districts in virtually every state.

Under the hobbled U.S. economy, many cities and states are currently suffering from severe short-falls of revenue and struggling to provide education for the children within those cities and states.

Families in Third World countries often have many children.  Although a significant number of illegal aliens who would benefit from Clinton's legalization program might not have minor children, it is likely that the number of kids who would ultimately be admitted into the United States because of her legalization program would exceed the number of heretofore aliens who would be placed on the pathway to United States citizenship. 

Additionally, these legalized aliens would likely go on to have more children in the United States, further increasing the school population and burdens placed on struggling schools around the United States.

This would be extremely costly and would result in over-crowded classrooms with many children, who are not fluent in the English language, requiring additional costly educational services.

In December 2007 the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) published an important paper, “The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments.”

The paper, that was published nearly ten years ago, estimated that there were 12 million illegal aliens present in the United States.

Today the news media and various government agencies claim that there are 11 million illegal aliens present in the United States even though, under the Obama administration, we have witnessed a succession of surges of illegal aliens flooding across the U.S./Mexican border and various government reports note that it is believed that each year approximately 500,000 non-immigrant aliens who are admitted into the United States through ports of entry ultimately overstay their authorized period of admission or otherwise violate their terms of admission.

Prior to the enactment of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) which, for the first time established a law that penalized employers who could be shown to have knowingly hired illegal aliens, also provided a “one time” amnesty program for the officially estimated population of roughly one million illegal aliens who were present in the United States.

Ultimately that amnesty program provided more than 3.5 million illegal aliens with lawful status.

Although the reason behind the extreme disparity between the originally estimated number of aliens who would “emerge from the shadows” was never determined, it is likely the consequence of a combination of two factors, underestimating the actual number of illegal aliens who were present in the United States and many aliens entering the United States long after the cutoff date and successfully defrauding the program by falsely claiming to have entered the United States prior to the established cutoff date.

A succession of GAO reports have found that immigration fraud is rampant within the immigration benefits program.  What is particularly disturbing about this fact is the finding of the 9/11 Commission that visa fraud and immigration benefit fraud were key to the ability of terrorists to enter the United States and embed themselves in the United States as they went about their preparation to launch deadly attacks.

While the report noted that it was difficult to quantify all of the costs attributable to the illegal alien population it did note that, “The tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants generate for state and local governments do not offset the total cost of services provided to those immigrants.”

The CBO paper addressed the issue of the cost of education to cities and states.  Consider this excerpt that began on page 7:


Education is the largest single expenditure in state and local budgets. Because state and local governments bear the primary fiscal and administrative responsibility of providing schooling from kindergarten through grade 12, they incur substantial costs to educate children who are unauthorized immigrants.  In 1982, the Supreme Court ruled that states may not exclude children from public education because of their immigration status.  Current estimates indicate that about 2 million school-age children (5 to 17 years old) in the United States are unauthorized immigrants; an additional 3 million children are U.S. citizens born to unauthorized immigrants.

According to the most recent population data released by the Census Bureau, as of July 2006, there were 53.3 million school-age children in the United States. Thus, children who are unauthorized immigrants represent almost 4 percent of the overall school-age population. Their numbers are growing quickly in some states, adding additional budgetary pressures.

The paper went on to report:

In terms of public education, unauthorized immigrants who are minors increase the overall number of students attending public schools, and they may also require more educational services than do native-born children because of a lack of proficiency in English. Analyses from several states indicate that the costs of educating students who did not speak English fluently were 20 percent to 40 percent higher than the costs incurred for native-born students.

Finally, school districts across the United States have found that the flood of unaccompanied minors from Central America has included within their ranks members of violent gangs such as MS-13.

My article, “President Obama: Accessory to the Crimes Committed By Illegal Aliens? The grim findings unveiled by a House congressional hearing” was predicated on a hearing conducted by the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security on April 19, 2016 on the topic, “The Real Victims of a Reckless and Lawless Immigration Policy: Families and Survivors Speak Out on the Real Cost of This Administration’s Policies.”

The prepared testimony of Sheriff Charles A. Jenkins of Frederick County, Maryland included this excerpt:
The criminal alien gang numbers are growing, and the serious crimes being committed are increasing. There is also a nexus between the deferred action on unaccompanied minors and the increases we are seeing in gang crimes. Statistics (2014-2015 stats were provided) and hard facts demonstrate the impact on public safety and the seriousness of the crimes committed by criminal alien gang members:
* There are over 75 active known validated transnational criminal gang members in Frederick County, many more suspected of gang affiliation. We also believe that MS-13 and 18th Street alien gangs are recruiting, locally, in our schools, in the region, and out of country.

The Sheriff went on to detail murders, rapes and assaults committed by these students who should not be present in the United States.  It must be noted that often the victims of the violence are members of the ethnic immigrant communities.

Our immigration laws were enacted to save American lives and American jobs.  Clinton's promise to make a mockery of those laws are anti-American.

Michael Cutler is a retired Senior Special Agent of the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) whose career spanned some 30 years. He served as an Immigration Inspector, Immigration Adjudications Officer and spent 26 years as an agent who rotated through all of the squads within the Investigations Branch. For half of his career he was assigned to the Drug Task Force. He has testified before well over a dozen congressional hearings, provided testimony to the 9/11 Commission as well as state legislative hearings around the United States and at trials where immigration is at issue. He hosts his radio show, “The Michael Cutler Hour,” on Friday evenings on BlogTalk Radio. His personal website is http://michaelcutler.net/.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264603/hillary-vs-education-american-children-michael-cutler

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

The State Department's Disproportionate Animus Toward Israel - Joseph Puder

by Joseph Puder

The hypocrisy of Mark Toner’s condemnation of Israel’s plan to resettle Amona evacuees.

U.S. State Department deputy spokesperson Mark Toner issued, on October 5, 2016 a statement that “strongly condemned” Israel’s plan to resettle the Amona evacuees whose settlement is to be demolished by an order of Israel’s Supreme Court.  Toner stated that “proceeding with this new settlement, which could include 300 units, would further damage the prospects of a two-state solution.”  The same term “strongly condemn” was used by the State Department when the Assad regime in Syria used chemical weapons against civilians.  Equating the murder of innocent civilians by a brutal dictator with 300 new housing units to resettle Israeli civilians in Shiloh, whose homes are due to be demolished in December, is disproportionate to say the least.

Toner’s boss, Secretary of State John Kerry in London with British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson, issued the following statement (October 16, 2016), “Suffice it to say that all of us are more than concerned and deeply, deeply disturbed by and outraged by what is happening in Aleppo, which is in the year 2016, in the beginning of the 21st century, a horrendous step back in time to a kind of barbarianism, a use of force that is of insult to all of the values that the United Nations and most countries believe should guide our actions.”  Secretary Kerry expressed “concern” and was “deeply disturbed” by events in Aleppo, but did not “strongly condemn” the killing of thousands of Syrian civilians in Aleppo.  The U.S. State Department has disproportionately displayed animus in its attitude toward Israel, and it smacks of a deep bias on top of a long history of anti-Semitism at Foggy Bottom.

In response to a reporter’s question as to why President Obama or Secretary of State Kerry did not use the term “strongly condemn” that the State Department spokesman used, Toner replied: “Well, there have been times in the past when it has come – these kinds of words have come from either Secretary Kerry or President Obama, and the message is always the same, which is we view settlements as counterproductive and counter to Israel’s interests. We’re going to keep up with that message and we’re going to keep conveying it to the Israeli Government when they take these kinds of actions. I think this one was, as we noted in the statement, particularly exceptional in the fact that it came mere days after we had concluded this memorandum of understanding, and also in the wake of one of Israel’s leading statesmen, Shimon Peres’s death.”

Israel’s Minister of Justice Ayelet Shaked responded to the State Departments harsh condemnation, saying that “The Middle East is burning, and the people of Syria are being slaughtered daily, I think the United States should concern itself with saving civilians in Syria and not with issuing harsh statements over a few housing units.”

Given the implication stemming from Toner’s words, and the policies of the Obama administration regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one might assume that the “Jewish settlements” are the sole obstacle to peace in the region.  And one might further assume that 300 new housing units is deserving of being “strongly condemned.” This is of course a preposterous assumption and fatally wrong.  First, as far as the Palestinian Authority (PA) is concerned, and Hamas in Gaza in particular, “all of Israel is considered by them as “occupied territory.”  In other words, they do not recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people with deep historical connections to the land, whether it is Tel Aviv, Haifa or a place like Shiloh, where the Tabernacle rested before Solomon’s Temple was built in Jerusalem.

Secondly, by objecting to the idea of Jews living in Judea and Samaria (West Bank), which is the cradle of Jewish history and civilization, the State Department is essentially  promoting “a Judenrein” Palestine.  Clearly, if Arab-Muslim Palestinians can live in the Jewish state as full citizens, why can’t Jews live in the West Bank or in a future Palestinian state? 

Thirdly, The West Bank is by all accounts “disputed territory” and not “occupied Palestinian territory.”  The State Department knew full well that the Palestinians, in 1947, rejected the UN Partition Plan because they hoped to liquidate the Jews in what subsequently became the Jewish State.  Legally, Israel has as much of a claim to the area as do the Palestinians.  From 1948 to 1967, Jordan occupied the West Bank illegally.   Prior to that, the territories were part of the British Mandate, and before that a neglected region of the Ottoman Empire.  There was never in history, a sovereign Arab state entity called Palestine. Yet, the original Palestine Mandate sought to create a Jewish Home (land) in all of today’s Palestine, from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.

It would much better serve peace between Israel and the Palestinians if the State Department would “strongly condemn” the PA’s hateful incitement against Jews and Israel, which is so pervasive throughout Palestinian society that the prospects for a real peace in our time, or the next generation is rather slim.  For several generations, the Palestinian mosques, media, and educational system poisoned the hearts and minds of the young to hate Jews and Israel, and at the same time encouraged terror through suicide bombers and individual killers.  Unless the PA begins to reverse that mindset of its people, the prospects for real peace are non-existent.  Moreover, the billions of dollars in U.S. and European Union aid to the PA intended to create a civil society that would encourage peaceful co-existence with Israel, has gone to waste.

There are currently two prospective Palestinian states, one based in Ramallah (West Bank) headed by Mahmoud Abbas and the PA, and the other based in Gaza headed by Ismail Haniya and Hamas.  Both reject face-to-face negotiations with Israel.  Hamas is a terror group recognized as such by the U.S. It will not, under any circumstance recognize or make peace with the Jewish state.  The PA has tried all avenues to circumvent direct negotiations with Israel.  Instead, Abbas went to the UN seeking recognition as a member state, in order to avoid direct and unconditional negotiations with Israel.

Corruption and nepotism has marked the tenure of the PA in the West Bank.  “Many Palestinians” in the words of Palestinian Human Rights activist Bassem Eid, “prefer the ‘dignity’ of a job and decent livelihood, that the PA is not providing them, over ‘identity’ or a Palestinian state, ruled by the corrupt elite.” It is about time for the State Department to understand that peace will come from ground level cooperation between Palestinian villages and Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria.   Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews are shopping at each other’s markets, albeit, this story has had little coverage in the international media.  This is where peace begins, and not on a meaningless piece of paper.  A Palestinian state cannot be built on the hate and incitement that encourages violence and death.  Investments that create jobs and cooperative projects in the West Bank, where Israelis and Palestinians can socialize and work together, initiated by the U.S. and the E.U., are the best prescription for peace.

Mark Toner’s escalated criticism of Israel by the usage of the term “strongly condemn” leveled at Israel’s declared intention to settle Jews expelled from Amona in Shiloh, is not only disproportionate, it is wrong and inimical to peace between Palestinians and Israelis.

Joseph Puder

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264585/state-departments-disproportionate-animus-toward-joseph-puder

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Saint Louis University: Islamic Stronghold - Matthew Vadum

by Matthew Vadum

The campus's mistreatment of Col. Allen West for daring to say “radical Islam” is only the tip of the iceberg.

Founded two centuries ago, Saint Louis University began as a Roman Catholic institution, but given its antics in recent years, one could be forgiven for believing that it might be better classified as an Islamic university. The most recent example of this transformation took place last month when more than a hundred students, egged on by campus administration, walked out of a speech by black former congressman Allen West because he dared to use the phrase “radical Islam.”

“Radical Islam” is the same expression that Muslim sympathizer President Barack Hussein Obama refuses to say. Obama, who claims to be a Christian, famously waxes poetic on the Muslim call to prayer, describing it as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.” With his head firmly planted in the sand, the president is also reluctant to label Muslim terrorist attacks as such, preferring to use the fuzzy abstraction “violent extremism.”

At Saint Louis University the campus administration tried to dictate the contents of the national security-themed speech in late September sponsored by Young America’s Foundation (YAF), but West, an outspoken conservative who represented a Florida district in the U.S. House from 2011 to 2013 as a Republican, refused to buckle under pressure. An SLU administrator told conservative and Republican students promoting the event that advertisements for it could not contain the words “radical Islam.”

SLU president Fred Pestello called West a “provocateur” and said in an email to students that he stood in “solidarity” with them.

Student Claire Cunningham whined to the Riverfront Times about her hurt feelings.

“Our administrator made a request for him to tailor his speech to our community, and in response he made a lot of hateful comments about our students,” she said.

Outraged at the university’s intolerable meddling the retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel who served in the Middle East wrote an op-ed asserting that he had been “censored” by the campus administration and labeled today’s college students who seek so-called safe spaces as “little cupcakes.”

West added:
I along with the YAF activists will not back down from this challenge. And if this is just a case of ill-conceived political correctness, we’ll rectify that. But, if this is a case of the influence of stealth jihad radical Islamic campus organizations such as the Muslim Student Association, an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood, then you will be exposed. And I recommend to the President of St. Louis University, you do not want it known that a radical Islamic organization is dictating speakers on your campus — that is not the type of PR you really want.
In his speech West discussed U.S. policy failures that have allowed Islamic terrorist groups to penetrate the U.S. and in some cases cover up terrorist attacks by describing them as outbreaks of workplace violence.

The terrorists don’t care about our partisan politics, he said, adding that “during 9/11, no one came in looking for Republicans or Democrats. They came looking to kill Americans.”

A 22-year military veteran who took part in Operation Desert Storm (1991) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003), West spoke of his experiences dealing with Islamic terrorism, explaining that “the greatest enjoyment I had was working with the Afghan army to make sure little Afghani girls could go to school.”

The walkout itself was staged political theater. Students led by the SLU Rainbow Alliance and the terrorist-linked Muslim Students Association (MSA) showed up early for the event on Sept. 29, filling many of the seats in the two-story auditorium where West was to speak. As he mounted the stage they stood up and left.

YAF spokeswoman Emily Jashinsky said SLU’s treatment of West isn’t out of the ordinary nowadays.” This is what happens when students attempt to bring one conservative speaker to a liberal campus,” she said. “Threatened leftists do everything they can to erect obstacles.”

Years ago David Horowitz had been scheduled to headline an event at Saint Louis University called "An Evening with David Horowitz: Islamo-Fascism Awareness and Civil Rights," which was put together by the College Republicans and YAF.

In an interview with FrontPage Horowitz recalled how shabbily he was treated in 2009 when he was scheduled to speak at SLU. Ultimately, the campus banned him after bargaining in bad faith over aspects of the event.

SLU wanted to put someone on stage to interpret and counter Horowitz’s message.

“They said okay but only if there’s somewhere there on the stage to explain Catholic teachings and then they withdrew,” he said.

Horowitz told me he agreed to the otherwise ridiculous request but the university canceled anyway.

“It’s the only university that I have not been allowed to speak at and they did it on behalf of the Muslim Students Association.”

“It’s a Catholic school but it’s an Islamic stronghold,” he said.

Founded in 1818 by Archbishop Louis William Valentine Dubourg, the Jesuit university is located in St. Louis, Missouri. Dubourg also served as the first president of Georgetown College, a Jesuit school which later became Georgetown University. Like SLU, Georgetown has embraced Islam with vigor. It is home to the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding and Islam apologist John L. Esposito.

SLU hosted a seminar in 2015 by #MyJihad, a group created by Ahmed Rehab, executive director of the Chicago office of the terrorist-linked Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). The idea behind the presentation was to misrepresent and rebrand the concept of jihad to make it less objectionable to Americans.

Ahmed Mohamed, the young troublemaking Muslim bomb hoaxer called Clock Boy by some, was portrayed at the SLU event as a victim. “What he went through is an example of a struggle,” according to #MyJihad’s account of the event. “Struggles are a human concept, and those can easily be tied into anything that happens.”

Mark Chmiel, an adjunct professor of theology at Saint Louis University, acknowledges that in 2003 he worked with the International Solidarity Movement in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. ISM, also known as the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, has been involved with HAMAS and the al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades. Chmiel attacked Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Laureate Elie Wiesel in his 2001 book, Elie Wiesel and the Politics of Moral Leadership.

SLU reportedly hosted a three-day ISM training and strategy event in 2012. According to one account:
These conferences try to pass themselves off as educational discussions about Middle East peace but make no mistake about it: they are training and strategy sessions to enlist more Rachel Corries to go to the Middle East and interfere with anti-terror operations of the IDF as well as to generate support for Hamas as it continues to fire rockets into southern Israel.
If that isn’t enough, a key emphasis will also be placed on training attendees from all over the nation into how to boycotts and divest from the Jews.  Publicly the leaders claim they only promote boycotting Israel’s “occupation” of Judea and Samaria and the “siege” on Gaza, but training sessions also teach how to infiltrate Jewish organizations in the United States and how to boycott businesses run by American Jews.
Elie Wiesel was interrupted and heckled by campus activists when he spoke at SLU in 2009. They shouted “come to Gaza” and see the “devastation” caused by the Israeli “occupation.”

Saint Louis University has also hosted BDS movement events. For example, in April 2011, the Busch Student Center was the site of an event called “An Introduction to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement: Nonviolent Resistance to Stop the Israeli Occupation of the Palestinian Territories.” One of the speakers, Fulbright scholar Sandra Samaan Tamari, was a member of the Saint Louis Palestine Solidarity Committee.

SLU has long had an active branch of the Muslim Students Association. MSA has chapters across the country and functions as a campus-based fifth column in America.

MSA’s parent entity is the Muslim World League (MWL), which is directly funded by Saudi authorities and is tied to al-Qaeda. The League acknowledges on its website that it is “engaged in propagating the religion of Islam” and “elucidating its principles and tenets.” It also engages in strategic lying, known in the Islamic world as taqiyya. The League “is well known for rejecting all acts of violence and promoting dialogue with the people of other cultures,” its website claims, adding that it does “not intend to undermine, dominate or practice hegemony over anyone else.”

The Muslim World League has reportedly taken in more than $1.3 billion since 1962 from the Saudi government to promote Wahhabism. The League, warns Andrew C. McCarthy, is the Muslim Brotherhood’s “principal vehicle for the international propagation of Islamic supremacist ideology.”

Quite apart from its support for Islam, SLU is a hotbed of political correctness and anti-Americanism like virtually all institutions of higher learning in the U.S.

Last year the gutless administration at SLU caved to complaints from radical students and relocated a sculpture campus leftists said celebrated white supremacy and colonialism from outside to inside a museum.

The sculpture, named “Where the Rivers Meet,” depicts Jesuit missionary Pierre-Jean De Smet on an elevated platform above two Native Americans, in what critics say could be seen as an attempt to convert them to Christianity. It had stood there for 60 years.

A local newspaper acknowledged that conversion was part of the mission of Belgian-born De Smet who died in St. Louis in 1873 but added “many historical accounts depict him as sympathetic to Native Americans and as working to dispel their reputation as savages.”

Kathryn Kuhn, an associate professor of sociology and anthropology, said at the time that the statue “really is shameful,” adding it has been “controversial for as long as I’ve been here, and I’ve been here for 25 years.”

The same year SLU commissioned a sculpture for display on the campus that “captures the spirit and importance” of a weeklong Occupy SLU protest the previous fall, the College Fix reports.
For six days in mid-October, community activists refused to leave the St. Louis campus in a protest intended as an extension of the summertime riots that had wracked nearby Ferguson over the police shooting of Michael Brown. Three social justice groups – Tribe X, the Metro St. Louis Coalition for Inclusion and Equality, and the Black Student Alliance – took over the campus and lived in tents around its clock tower.
Flying an upside-down American flag, they gave speeches and “teach ins” on topics such as “conscious awakening, systematic oppression, white supremacy, and students’ responsibility to the community,” according to a YouTube video that documented the demonstration.
The demonstrators left only after the university agreed to all 13 of their demands, one of which was a “mutually agreed upon commissioned artwork.”
Of course Saint Louis University gave in to the student radicals.

The Left demands that universities honor depravity and universities like SLU eagerly comply.

Truth-tellers like Allen West and David Horowitz, on the other hand, routinely get the bum’s rush.

And that’s the way left-wingers like it.

Matthew Vadum, senior vice president at the investigative think tank Capital Research Center, is an award-winning investigative reporter and author of the book, "Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers."

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264586/saint-louis-university-islamic-stronghold-matthew-vadum

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Dancing in the dark with Hillary - Jack Englehard

by Jack Englehard

Given Liberal hostility against the Jewish State as revealed by Wikileaks, we can only assume that however it was for Benjamin Netanyahu under Barack Obama, it would be the same for Israel’s prime minister under Hillary Clinton -- and maybe worse.

Here’s something else that didn’t come up at the debate – Israel. We know, from his past comments, that Trump would respond favorably to the Jewish State.

For Hillary, Israel would present a problem. Her advisers, as we learn here, would prefer that she drop the subject in public. They don’t want her to mention Israel because (Gevalt!) it might upset her touchy Democratic/Liberal/Progressive followers, if, that is, she were to name Israel as a valued ally.

Obviously she took their advice. I haven’t heard her speak openly about Israel for quite some time. Have you?

That is not quite a boycott, but it does mean that among Liberals, Israel is a “trigger” word and when it is mentioned they scatter to their “safe spaces.”

The larger question is what’s become of Truman’s party? The Democrats used to be the good guys for the Jews.

Between then and now, something happened, and none of it is good news for Israel should Hillary end up in the White House.

Given Liberal hostility against the Jewish State as revealed by Wikileaks, we can only assume that however it was for Benjamin Netanyahu under Barack Obama, it would be the same for Israel’s prime minister under Hillary Clinton -- and maybe worse.

Worse because we can’t trust anything she says. True, she may turn out to be another Golda, but chances of that are slim. It appears that Hillary Clinton is a bad person. That’s not me saying this, it’s The New York Post, which alerts us to the fact that she treats her security detail like dirt, and they can’t stand her.

Next we have it, from Wikileaks, that her own people, those political operators within her inner circle, don’t know what she stands for.

They don’t like her either and don’t know who she is or why she’s running.

Meanwhile, Megyn Kelly flashed high drama journalism when she exposed dirty tricks coming from DNC chair Donna Brazile. Kelly, who stars in this brazenly unauthorized new novel, trapped Brazile into giving real answers to real questions and Brazile couldn’t handle the truth.

Trump is right. It’s rigged and they’ll do anything and stop at nothing to get Hillary elected. Only in this can you trust them – voter fraud.

Can I get me an oy vey?

Back to what it means to be a Democrat, so are we to assume that members of that party tend to be anti-Israel? Apparently, yes. We have those facts to prove this, and remember that at the 2012 Democratic National Convention, the Jewish State got booed. So did G-d.

What, me worry? Yes, me worry. Because to be anti-Israel is to be anti-Semitic and if this trend continues we in America are in a heap of trouble. Not only Jews, by the way. Christians aren’t much loved either according to what we’re learning from those leaked emails moving through the hacked files in and around Hillary Clinton.

But Christians have numbers.

Jews are always outnumbered and for some reason, at least here in the United States, we continue to think, support and vote Liberal.

There’s enough information to illuminate us to the fact that Liberals are not our friends. But we’ll continue dancing in the dark.

I like to end my columns upbeat. I’ll have to get back to you on that.

Jack Englehard writes a regular column for Arutz Sheva. New from the novelist: “News Anchor Sweetheart,” a novelist’s version of Fox News and Megyn Kelly. Engelhard is the author of the international bestseller Indecent Proposal.” He is the recipient of the Ben Hecht Award for Literary Excellence. Website: www.jackengelhard.com

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/19656

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

No Justice in the Netherlands - Judith Bergman

by Judith Bergman

Clearly, in the Netherlands, justice is no longer blind and the courts no longer independent and impartial state institutions.

  • It is deeply troubling that the court already before the criminal trial has even begun, so obviously compromises its own impartiality and objectivity. Are other European courts also quietly submitting to jihadist values of curtailing free speech and "inconvenient" political views?
  • If you are a politician and concerned about the future welfare of your country, you should be able to discuss the pertinent issues of the day, including problems with immigrants and other population groups.
  • Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that: "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers..."
  • In its case law, the Court has stated that Article 10 "...protects not only the information or ideas that are regarded as inoffensive but also those that offend, shock or disturb; such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness without which there is no democratic society. Opinions expressed in strong or exaggerated language are also protected".
  • Wilders did not incite to violence or prosecution (or humiliation), nor did he jeopardize national security or public safety.
A court in The Hague decided on October 14 that the charges of hate speech against Dutch politician Geert Wilders, for statements he made in March 2014 at a political rally, are admissible in a court of law. It thereby rejected the Wilders' appeal to throw out the charges as inadmissible in a court of law on the grounds that these are political issues and that a trial would in fact amount to a political process. The criminal trial against Wilders will begin on Monday, October 31.

While campaigning in The Hague in March 2014, Wilders argued the need for fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands. At an election meeting in The Hague, he asked those present a number of questions, one of which was "Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?" After the crowd responded "fewer" Wilders said, "We're going to organize that."

Geert Wilders during his March 2014 speech, where he asked "Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?" (Image source: nos.nl video screenshot)

Because of the "fewer Moroccans" statements, repeated again in an interview a few days later, Wilders will be prosecuted on two counts: First for "deliberately insulting a group of people because of their race." Second, for "inciting hatred or discrimination against these people."

Wilders' defense attorney, Geert Jan Knoops, has argued that the trial amounts to a political trial against Wilders and his party, the PVV: "Sensitive issues must be judged by public opinion or through the ballot box,", Knoops said "The Prosecutor is indirectly asking for a ruling over the functioning of the PVV and its political program. The court must not interfere with this."

As a politician, Wilders can say more than an ordinary citizen, Knoops said, arguing that Wilders used his statements to point out shortcomings in the Dutch state. "It is his duty to name shortcomings. He takes that responsibility and proposes solutions." Knoops argued that the prosecutor is limiting Wilders' freedom of speech by prosecuting him for his statements.

The court's response was that although politicians are entitled to freedom of expression, they should "avoid public statements that feed intolerance" and that the trial would determine where the border lies between politicians' freedom of expression and their obligation, as the court sees it, to avoid public statements that feed intolerance.

Other politicians, notably all from the Labour Party, have uttered the following about Moroccans without being prosecuted:
The court discarded Wilders' defense attorney's argument that the failure to prosecute any of these politicians renders the trial against Wilders discriminatory. The court said that because of the different time, place and context of the statements of other politicians, they cannot be equated with the statements of Mr. Wilders and for that reason, the court considers that there has been no infringement of the principle of equality.

The statements of those other politicians, however, were, objectively speaking, far worse in their use of language ("sh*t Moroccans") and what could be considered direct incitement ("We must humiliate Moroccans"). What other time, place and context could possibly make the above statements more acceptable than asking whether voters would like more or fewer Moroccans? And what circumstances render it legitimate to call someone "sh*t" because of their ethnic origin?

It is deeply troubling that the court already in its preliminary ruling, and before the criminal trial itself has even begun, so obviously compromises its own impartiality and objectivity. To the outside world, this court no longer appears impartial. Are other European courts also quietly submitting to jihadist values of curtailing free speech and "inconvenient" political views?

The Netherlands is a party to the European Convention of Human Rights. This means that Dutch courts are obligated to interpret domestic legislation in a way compatible with the ECHR and the case law of the European Court on Human Rights. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights states:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers...
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
In its case law, the European Court of Human Rights has stated[1] that Article 10
"...protects not only the information or ideas that are regarded as inoffensive but also those that offend, shock or disturb; such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness without which there is no democratic society. Opinions expressed in strong or exaggerated language are also protected".
Even more important in the context of the trial against Wilders is the fact that according to the European Court of Human Rights' case law,
"...the extent of protection depends on the context and the aim of the criticism. In matters of public controversy or public interest, during political debate, in electoral campaigns... strong words and harsh criticism may be expected and will be tolerated to a greater degree by the Court". [emphasis added]
Let us review what Wilders said and the context in which he said it: "Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?" After the crowd responded "fewer" Wilders said, "We're going to organize that." He repeated that statement in a subsequent interview, where he said, "The fewer Moroccans, the better."

The context in which he said it was an election campaign in March 2014 against the backdrop of considerable problems with Moroccans in the Netherlands. According to Dutch journalist Timon Dias:
Statistics show that 65% of all Moroccan youths have been arrested by police, and that one third of that group have been arrested more than five times.
Wilders emphasizes the inordinate costs associated with the disproportionately high number of Dutch Moroccans registered as social welfare beneficiaries and who are implicated in welfare fraud.
Now, if you are a politician and concerned about the future welfare of your country, you should, logically, be able to discuss the pertinent issues of the day, including existing problems with immigrants and other population groups. This discussion will only make sense in a democratic society if it takes place in public, and certainly with voters at a political rally during an election campaign. Asking whether voters want fewer Moroccans in their city or country may seem crude to some and offensive to others. However, in the light of the case law of the European Human Rights Court, which specifically protects political speech with a very wide margin, especially that of political actors and political campaigns, it is very difficult to see, if not impossible, how the question Wilders posed could legitimately be covered by article 10 (2).

According to article 10 (2), freedom of speech can be limited when
"necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
Wilders did not incite to violence or prosecution (or humiliation), nor did he jeopardize national security or public safety or any of the other concerns noted above.

It is more difficult to see how the statement, "We must humiliate Moroccans" by Labour politician Hans Spekman, who was not prosecuted, could be legitimized, as it constitutes direct incitement to some form of humiliating action towards Moroccans. Then again, Hans Spekman is not Geert Wilders.

Clearly, in the Netherlands, justice is no longer blind and the courts no are longer independent and impartial state institutions. This should deeply concern all Dutch citizens.

Judith Bergman is a writer, columnist, lawyer and political analyst.
Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9171/geert-wilders-justice

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
There was an error in this gadget