Category Archives: Citizens Duty

Can you be Arrested by an Immigrant?

Posted on by

The death of sovereignty. The death or outrage. The death of moral clarity. The death of allegiance. Remember as you read below, police officers must attend a police academy at their own expense and purchase a weapon of their own choice. Now ask yourself, who is paying the tuition and for the firearm?

Police departments hiring immigrants as officers

Law enforcement agencies struggling to fill their ranks or connect with their increasingly diverse populations are turning to immigrants to fill the gap.

Most agencies in the country require officers or deputies to be U.S. citizens, but some are allowing immigrants who are legally in the country to wear the badge. From Hawaii to Vermont, agencies are allowing green-card holders and legal immigrants with work permits to join their ranks.

At a time when 25,000 non-U.S. citizens are serving in the U.S. military, some feel it’s time for more police and sheriff departments to do the same. That’s why the Nashville Police Department is joining other departments to push the state legislature to change a law that bars non-citizens from becoming law enforcement officers.

Department spokesman Don Aaron said they want immigrants who have been honorably discharged from the military to be eligible for service.

“Persons who have given of themselves in the service to this country potentially have much to offer Tennesseans,” he said. “We feel that … would benefit both the country and this city.”

Current rules vary across departments.

Some, like the Chicago and Hawaii police departments, allow any immigrant with a work authorization from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to become an officer. That means people in the country on temporary visas or are applying for green cards can join.

Colorado State Patrol Sgt. Justin Mullins said the department usually struggles to fill trooper positions in less populous corners of the state, including patrol sectors high up in the mountains. He said immigrants from Canada, the Bahamas, the United Kingdom, Mexico and Central America who are willing to live in those remote places have helped the agency fill those vacancies.

“People that want to live there and build a family there and work there is a little more difficult to find,” Mullins said. “People moving from out of state, or out of the country, if they’re willing to work in these areas, then that’s great for us.”

Other agencies, like the Cincinnati Police Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, require that officers at least have a pending citizenship application on file with the federal government. And others, like the Burlington, Vt., and Boulder, Colo., police departments, require that officers be legal permanent residents, or green-card holders.

With more immigrants moving to places far from the southern border or away from traditional immigrant magnets like New York City or Miami, agency leaders say it’s important to have a more diverse police force to communicate with those immigrants and understand their culture. Bruce Bovat, deputy chief of operations in Burlington, said their immigrant officers help the agency be more “reflective of the community we serve.”

Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, said he has no problems with green-card holders becoming police officers because they’ve made a long-term commitment to the country and have undergone extensive background checks. But he worries about the security risks associated with allowing any immigrant with a work permit to become an officer, especially considering that the Obama administration has given hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants work permits.

“We’re handing over a gun and a badge to somebody whose background we don’t really know a lot about,” Krikorian said.

Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, said any immigrant authorized to work in the U.S. has already undergone a thorough background check and will undergo even more screening in the police application process.

“The security risk is a straw man,” he said. “This is about people who have gone through criminal background checks, who are meeting the very high standards that we set as a country to stay here and who only want to serve and protect their communities.”

Now we should take a look at small town Iowa.

For small-town America, new immigrants pose linguistic, cultural challenges

A new generation of immigrants is arriving in Midwest towns from far-flung places such as Myanmar, Somalia, and Iraq. The communities are trying to adjust.

Marshalltown, Iowa — The voice was frantic – and unintelligible to the 911 dispatcher. “Ma’am, I cannot understand you,” she said. After 80 seconds, one word leapt out: “Riverview.”

On a warm July evening in 2012, while Marshalltown, Iowa, celebrated Independence Day, three refugee children from Myanmar (Burma) drowned in the Iowa River. The drownings at Riverview Park cast a grim light on the challenges facing both the city and its newest immigrants, most of whom spoke little English and had scant understanding of life in their new home – including the perils, known to more established residents, of the river’s treacherous currents.

“We preach to kids all the time: You don’t swim in the river. You don’t play around the river,” says Kay Beach, president of the Marshalltown school board. “But they didn’t know that.”

For two decades, rural communities across the Midwest have been finding ways to absorb Latino immigrants. Now, a new generation of immigrants arriving from far-flung places such as Myanmar, Somalia, Iraq, and West Africa has brought a bewildering variety of cultures and languages. Many towns are struggling to cope.

Experts say the changing face of immigration in the rural Midwest reflects stricter federal enforcement. Tighter border security has slowed the influx of immigrants from Latin America entering the United States illegally. Meanwhile, the meatpacking industry has looked to refugees, who enjoy legal status, as a way of avoiding problems with undocumented Hispanic workers.

Much of the difficulty surrounding the new immigration is linguistic. Language barriers complicate services from law enforcement to health care. Ms. Beach recalls a school expulsion hearing that required two interpreters – the first to translate from one dialect of Myanmar to another, the second to translate into English.

Cultural differences can cause problems, too. “Back where we come from, people used to live how they want,” says Nyein Pay, who was a guerrilla fighter against the Burmese government and now cuts pork at a local meatpacking plant. “We used to grow up in the forest. Here we live in a city. It’s different. Here they have tight laws.”

Communities are trying to adjust. After the Marshalltown drownings, the schools and the local YMCA organized swimming classes. In Columbus Junction, Iowa, the town started a community garden for immigrants from Myanmar; the local health clinic hired an interpreter.

Mallory Smith, director of the Columbus Junction Community Development Center, says police have grown experienced at dealing with language barriers. “You know when you’ve got to use sign language, to use simple words, to draw a picture, or get a translator.”

Hillary Obstruction, Secrecy Called Out in Ad

Posted on by

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvHGDSCvi00&feature=player_detailpage#t=23

Exclusive: Despite Hillary Clinton promise, charity did not disclose donors

(Reuters) – In 2008, Hillary Clinton promised Barack Obama, the president-elect, there would be no mystery about who was giving money to her family’s globe-circling charities. She made a pledge to publish all the donors on an annual basis to ease concerns that as secretary of state she could be vulnerable to accusations of foreign influence.

At the outset, the Clinton Foundation did indeed publish what they said was a complete list of the names of more than 200,000 donors and has continued to update it. But in a breach of the pledge, the charity’s flagship health program, which spends more than all of the other foundation initiatives put together, stopped making the annual disclosure in 2010, Reuters has found.

In response to questions from Reuters, officials at the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) and the foundation confirmed no complete list of donors to the Clintons’ charities has been published since 2010. CHAI was spun off as a separate legal entity that year, but the officials acknowledged it still remains subject to the same disclosure agreement as the foundation.

The finding could renew scrutiny of Clinton’s promises of transparency as she prepares to launch her widely expected bid for the White House in the coming weeks. Political opponents and transparency groups have criticized her in recent weeks for her decision first to use a private email address while she was secretary of state and then to delete thousands of emails she labeled private.

CHAI, which is best known for helping to reduce the cost of drugs for people with HIV in the developing world, published a partial donor list for the first time only this year.

CHAI should have published the names during 2010-2013, when Clinton was in office, CHAI spokeswoman Maura Daley acknowledged this week. “Not doing so was an oversight which we made up for this year,” she told Reuters in an email when asked why it had not published any donor lists until a few weeks ago.

A spokesman for Hillary Clinton declined to comment. Former President Bill Clinton, who also signed on to the agreement with the Obama administration, was traveling and could not be reached for comment, his spokesman said.

Because Hillary was a Federal government employee, the Department of Justice has stepped in to defend her on the email scandal.

DOJ defends Clinton from email subpoena

The Justice Department is defending former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from a motion to subpoena her private emails under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

“Such action is unnecessary and inappropriate under FOIA,” DOJ officials wrote in a legal briefing filed Thursday. Officials were responding to a case launched by Larry Klayman, the founder of the conservative watchdog group Freedom Watch. Klayman is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., to subpoena Clinton’s computer server where she housed the private email address she used while serving in the State Department.

Clinton has turned over 55,000 pages of emails that she believed could be considered official government communications, but she deleted 30,000 emails that she considered to be personal.

The Justice Department describes Klayman’s call for a subpoena as “speculation” in its brief.

“Plaintiff provides no basis, beyond sheer speculation, to believe that former Secretary Clinton withheld any work-related emails from those provided to the Department of State,” the agency says.

POTUS, Abhorrent Attitude with Israel

Posted on by

One may have to ask if there are temper tantrums at the White House. Are there broken dishes, doors kicked in, fits of rage or chairs overturned? This White House had better consider that beyond Israel, there are several other Middle East leaders that could be very worrisome to Obama’s doctrine, all the signs are there. What is as chilling is the White House is working overtime with United Nations connections to punish Prime Minister Netanyahu, Israel but more so, the people of Israel.

In 2014:

Obama’s Curious Rage

Calm when it comes to Putin, ISIS and Hamas, but furious with Israel.

Barack Obama “has become ‘enraged’ at the Israeli government, both for its actions and for its treatment of his chief diplomat, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.” So reports the Jerusalem Post, based on the testimony of Martin Indyk, until recently a special Middle East envoy for the president. The war in Gaza, Mr. Indyk adds, has had “a very negative impact” on Jerusalem’s relations with Washington.

Think about this. Enraged. Not “alarmed” or “concerned” or “irritated” or even “angered.” Anger is a feeling. Rage is a frenzy. Anger passes. Rage feeds on itself. Anger is specific. Rage is obsessional, neurotic.

And Mr. Obama—No Drama Obama, the president who prides himself on his cool, a man whose emotional detachment is said to explain his intellectual strength—is enraged. With Israel. Which has just been hit by several thousand unguided rockets and 30-odd terror tunnels, a 50-day war, the forced closure of its one major airport, accusations of “genocide” by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, anti-Semitic protests throughout Europe, general condemnation across the world. This is the country that is the object of the president’s rage.

Think about this some more. In the summer in which Mr. Obama became “enraged” with Israel, Islamic State terrorists seized Mosul and massacred Shiite soldiers in open pits, Russian separatists shot down a civilian jetliner, Hamas executed 18 “collaborators” in broad daylight, Bashar Assad’s forces in Syria came close to encircling Aleppo with the aim of starving the city into submission, a brave American journalist had his throat slit on YouTube by a British jihadist, Russian troops openly invaded Ukraine, and Chinese jets harassed U.S. surveillance planes over international waters.

Mr. Obama or his administration responded to these events with varying degrees of concern, censure and indignation. But rage?

Here, for instance, is the president in early August, talking to the New York Times‘sTom Friedman about Russia and Ukraine:

“Finding an off-ramp for [Vladimir Putin] becomes more challenging. Having said that I think it is still possible for us, because of the effective organization that we have done with the Europeans around Ukraine, and the genuine bite that the sanctions have had on the Russian economy, for us to arrive at a fair accommodation in which Ukrainian sovereignty and independence is still recognized but there is also recognition that Ukraine does have historic ties to Russia, the majority of their trade goes to Russia, huge portions of the population are Russian speaking, and so they are not going to be severed from Russia. And if we do that a deal should be possible.”

This isn’t even condemnation. It’s an apology. For Mr. Putin. Benjamin Netanyahu should be so lucky.

Now think about what, specifically, has enraged the president about Israel’s behavior. “Its actions and its treatment of his chief diplomat.”

Actions? Hamas began firing rockets at Israel in June, thereby breaking the cease-fire it had agreed to at the end of the last war, in November 2012. The latest war began in earnest on July 7 when Hamas fired some 80 rockets at Israel. “No country can accept rocket fire aimed at civilians,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the next day, “and we support Israel’s right to defend itself against these vicious attacks.”

On July 15 Israel accepted the terms of a cease-fire crafted by Egypt. Hamas violated it by firing 50 rockets at Israel. On July 17 Israel accepted a five-hour humanitarian cease-fire. Hamas violated it again. On July 20 Israel allowed a two-hour medical window in the neighborhood of Shujaiyeh. Hamas violated it. On July 26 Hamas announced a daylong cease-fire. It then broke its own cease-fire. On July 28 Israel agreed to a cease-fire for the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr. The rocket attacks continued. On Aug. 1 Israel accepted a 72-hour cease-fire proposed by the U.S. Hamasviolated it within 90 minutes. On Aug. 5 Israel agreed to Egypt’s terms for another three-day cease-fire. Hamas violated it several hours before it was set to expire, after Israel announced it would agree to an extension.

If Hamas had honored any of these cease-fires it could have saved Palestinian lives. It didn’t. Mr. Obama is enraged—but not with Hamas.

As for Israel’s supposed ill-treatment of Mr. Kerry, the president should read Ben Birnbaum’s and Amir Tibon’s account of his secretary’s Mideast misadventures in the July 20 issue of the New Republic. It’s a portrait of a diplomat with the skills and style, but not the success, of Inspector Clouseau. Mr. Obama might also read Haaretz columnist Ari Shavit’s assessment of Mr. Kerry’s diplomacy: “The Obama administration,” he wrote in July, “proved once again that it is the best friend of its enemies, and the biggest enemy of its friends.”

Both Haaretz and the New Republic are left-wing publications, sympathetic to Mr. Obama’s intentions, if not his methods.

Still, the president is enraged. At Israel. What a guy. *** Yet there is another list as evidence.

A Complete Timeline of Obama’s Anti-Israel Hatred

On Thursday, the press announced that the Obama administration would fully consider abandoning Israel in international bodies like the United Nations.

According to reports, President Obama finally called Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to congratulate him – but the “congratulations” was actually a lecture directed at forcing Netanyahu to surrender to the terrorist Palestinian regime.

For some odd reason, many in the media and Congress reacted with surprise to Obama’s supposedly sudden turn on Israel. The media, in an attempt to defend Obama’s radicalism, pretend that Netanyahu’s comments in the late stages of his campaign prompted Obama’s anti-Israel action.

But, in truth, this is the culmination of a longtime Obama policy of destroying the US-Israel relationship; Obama has spent his entire life surrounded by haters of Israel, from former Palestine Liberation Organization spokesman Rashid Khalidi to former Jimmy Carter National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, pro-Hamas negotiator Robert Malley to UN Ambassador Samantha Power (who once suggested using American troops to guard Palestinians from Israelis), Jeremiah Wright (who said “Them Jews ain’t going to let him talk to me”) to Professor Derrick Bell (“Jewish neoconservative racists…are undermining blacks in every way they can”). Here is a concise timeline, with credit to Dan Senor and the editors of Commentary:

February 2008: Obama says while campaigning, ‘There is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel.” At the time, as Dan Senor pointed out in The Wall Street Journal, Israel was run by the Kadima government run by Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni, and Shimon Peres, and was attempting desperately to bring the Palestinians to the table. Instead, the Palestinians launch war, as always.

June 2008: Obama tells the American Israel Public Affairs Conference that Jerusalem ought to remain undivided, attempting to woo Jewish votes. He then walks that back the next day, saying only that the capital shouldn’t be divided by barbed wire.

March 2009: The Obama administration reverses the Bush era policy of not joining the United Nations Human Rights Council. Secretary of State Clinton said, “Human rights are an essential element of American global foreign policy,” completely neglecting the UNHRC’s abysmally anti-Semitic record. The Washington Post reported that the administration joined the Human Rights Council even though they conceded that it “has devoted excessive attention to alleged abuses by Israel and too little to abuses in places such as Darfur, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe.”

May 2009: Obama tells Netanyahu that “settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward.” Netanyahu announces a settlement freeze to comply. The Palestinians refuse to negotiate. Obama then slams Israel: “they still found it very hard to move with any bold gestures.”

June 2009: Obama tells the world in his infamous Cairo speech that Israel was only created based on Jewish suffering in the Holocaust. He then says that Palestinians have been similarly victimized by the Jews: “They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.”

July 2009: Obama threatens to put “daylight” between the United States and Israel. He tells Jewish leaders, “Look at the past eight years. During those eight years, there was no space between us and Israel, and what did we get from that?” Except for Israel forcibly removing thousands of Jews from the Gaza Strip, the election of Hamas, and the launch of war by the Palestinians and Hezbollah, nothing happened. Obama then lectures the Jews about the need for Israeli “self-reflection.” The same month, Obama tells CNN that the United States would “absolutely not” give Israel permission to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities.

September 2009: Obama tells the United Nations that “America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” Obama’s definition of Israeli settlements, as the world soon learned, included building bathrooms in a home already owned by Jews in East Jerusalem. Obama offers no serious criticism of the Palestinians.

March 2010: Obama follows up on his threatening language about settlements by deploying Vice President Joe Biden to Israel, where Biden rips into the Israelis for building bathrooms in Jerusalem, the eternal Jewish capital. Hillary Clinton then yells at Netanyahu for nearly an hour on the phone, telling him he had “harmed the bilateral relationship.” David Axelrod calls the building plans an “insult” to the United States. When Netanyahu visits the White House a week and a half later, Obama makes him leave via a side door.

April 2010: Obama refuses to prevent the Washington summit on nuclear proliferation from becoming an Arab referendum on the evils of Israel’s nukes.

June 2010: An anonymous “US defense source” leaks to the Times of London that Israel had cut a deal with the Saudis to use their airspace to strike Iran. The deal is scuttled.

May 2011: The State Department labeled Jerusalem not a part of Israel. The same month, Obama demanded that Israel make concessions to the Palestinians based on the pre-1967 borders, which Israelis call the “Auschwitz borders” thanks to their indefensibility.

November 2011: Obama and French president Nicolas Sarkozy are caught on open mic ripping Netanyahu, with Sarkozy stating, “I can’t stand him, he’s a liar,” and Obama replying, “You’re tired of him? What about me? I have to deal with him every day.”

December 2011: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rips into the State of Israel, stating that it is moving in the “opposite direction” of democracy. She said that Israel reminded her of Rosa Parks, and that religious people not listening to women sing – a millennia-long policy among some segments of the Orthodox – reminds her of extremist regimes, adding that it seemed “more suited to Iran than Israel.“

February 2012: Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta tells David Ignatius at the Washington Post that the possibility he worried about most was that Israel would strike Iran. The Post then adds, “Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June – before Iran enters what Israelis described as a ‘zone of immunity’ to commence building a nuclear bomb.” The goal: to delay any potential Israeli strike.

March 2012: NBC News somehow gains information from “senior Obama administration officials” that Israel had financed and trained the Iranian opposition group Mujahideen-e-Khalq, and adds that the Obama administration had nothing to do with hits on Iranian nuclear scientists. More daylight. More leaks. The same month, Foreign Policy receives information from “four senior diplomats and military intelligence officers” that the “United States has recently been granted access to Iran’s northern border.” Foreign Policy also reports that a “senior administration official” has told them, “The Israelis have bought an airfield, and the airfield is Azerbaijan.” Again, a potential Israeli strike is scuttled. The same day as the Foreign Policy report, Bloomberg reports a Congressional Research Service report stating that Israel can’t stop Iran’s nuclear program in any case. Columnist Ron Ben-Yishai of Yidioth Ahronoth writes that the Obama administration wants to “erode the IDF’s capacity to launch such strike with minimal casualties.”

June 2012: In an attempt to shore up the Jewish vote, top members of the Obama administration, including Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and then-CIA director Leon Panetta were quoted by David Sanger of The New York Times talking about the President’s supposedly deep involvement in the Stuxnet plan to take out Iran’s nuclear reactors via computer virus. Until that point, it had been suspected but not confirmed that Stuxnet was an Israeli project. The Obama administration denied leaking the information. A year later, the State Department released emails showing that Sanger had corresponded regularly with all the top Obama officials, including correspondence on Stuxnet.

December 2012: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks at the Saban Forum on US-Israel Relations, where she says that Israelis have a “lack of empathy” for Palestinians, and that the Israelis need to “demonstrate that they do understand the pain of an oppressed people in their minds.”

March 2013: Obama forces Netanyahu to call Islamist Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan to apologize for Israel’s actions to stop a terrorist-arming flotilla from entering the Gaza Strip to aid Hamas. Erdogan had recently labeled Zionism racism.

May 2013: Members of the Obama Pentagon leak information that Israel attacked the Damascus airport to stop a shipment of weapons to terrorist groups. Obama officials actually had to apologize for this leak, since it endangered American lives. They blamed “low-level” employees.

June 2013: The Obama administration leaks specific information regarding Israeli Arrow 3 anti-ballistic missile sites. Weeks later, US sources tell CNN that Israel attacked a Syrian installation full of Russian-provided missiles. The same month, “American intelligence analysts” tell the New York Times that Israeli strikes had not been effective. All that information was classified.

June 2014: Three Jewish teenagers are kidnapped, including an American, and murdered by Hamas. The Obama administration immediately calls on Israel for restraint, and says it will continue to work with a Palestinian unity government including Hamas. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki says that the Obama administration wants “the Israelis and the Palestinians continue to work with one another on that, and we certainly would continue to urge that… in spite of, obviously, the tragedy and the enormous pain on the ground.” Throughout the ensuing Gaza War, in which Hamas fired rockets at Israeli civilians and tunnels were uncovered demonstrating Hamas’ intent to kidnap Israeli children, the Obama administration criticized Israel’s prosecution of the war.

August 2014: In the middle of a shooting war, Obama stopped weapons shipment to Israel. According to the Wall Street Journal, Obama found out that Israel asked the Defense Department for shipments of Hellfire missiles. Obama personally stepped in and blocked the shipments.

October 2014: Jeffrey Goldberg, court Jew for the Obama administration, releases an article in The Atlantic quoting Obama officials calling Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a “chickenshit.” Goldberg, naturally, blames Netanyahu (of course, he also wrote in 2008 that any Jew who feared Obama on Israel was an “obvious racist”).

January 2015: Obama deploys his campaign team to defeat Netanyahu in Israel. A group titled “One Voice,” funded by American donors, pays for the Obama campaign team, led by Obama 2012 field director Jeremy Bird. The announcement comes days after Speaker of the House John Boehner’s invite to Netanyahu to speak before a joint session of Congress. Obama quickly announced he would not meet with Netanyahu, making the excuse that the meeting would come too close to the election.

March 2015: Netanyahu wins. Obama refuses to call him to congratulate him for two days. When he does, he threatens to remove American support in the international community, even as he moves to loosen sanctions and weapons embargoes on Iran.

Nothing has changed. Obama is who he always was. The mask has simply been removed.

POTUS Admin Loyalty to Islam and Iran

Posted on by

General Petraeus penned an Op-Ed today declaring that Iran is a worse enemy than Islamic State. So it defies explanation that the Obama regime would cozy up to Iran and continue his loyalty to the Muslim Brotherhood without media notice.

Recently, an interesting article in US Military by Sasha Toperich at the Center for Transatlantic Relations (Johns Hopkins), noted how “skeptics in North Africa are now convinced the Arab Spring was nothing but a Western conspiracy to divide and fragment the Middle East and give authority to the Muslim Brotherhood.

In the Levant and the Eastern Mediterranean, one can see how the Obama administration’s actions may appear to support these claims.

US-sponsored Muslim Brotherhood ‘Democracy’

In Libya for example, despite citizens voting them out of office in June 2014, the Muslim Brotherhood refuses to hand power over to the new internationally recognized government in Tobruk in eastern Libya.

Both US and UK seem to back the Brotherhood and blocked the government’s request to ease an arms embargo after ISIS slaughtered 21 Egyptian Christians, while Britain’s UN representative credited the Brotherhood-backed Fajr Libya as the only group fighting ISIS despite heavy Libyan army losses.

Meanwhile Qatar and Turkey continue to supply arms to the Brotherhood-backed Libya Dawn militia battling the Libyan government for power, even as the latter is bogged down in joint military operations with Cairo to fight ISIS and other terrorist groups.

In Egypt, now an embattled al-Sisi faces ISIS and terrorism both in its eastern Sinai flank and the western Libya flank, but the Obama administration continues to embargo desperately needed military aid in Cairo’s hour of need, despite supplying aid to Muslim Brotherhood’s Morsi when he was in power.

The sense of betrayal is further deepened when after Egypt designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, State Department hosted a Brotherhood delegation that two days later called for war against fellow Egyptians.

Likewise in Syria, the Brotherhood has hijacked Syria’s revolution with the most dominant profile in the Syrian National Council (SNC) supported by US, and especially Turkey and Qatar that also back Hamas.

Now in Israel, while the Muslim Brotherhood may not replace Prime Minister Netanyahu, perhaps Bibi’s concerns regarding foreign meddling to topple the Likud government for regime change have some merits.

Media reports abound that Obama deployed his campaign strategist Jeremy Bird and his team to Israel to run an anti-Netanyahu election campaign, reinforced by Biden and Kerry’s s meeting with and endorsement of Herzog on the margins of the Munich Security Conference, while boycotting Netanyahu’s visit to the US in March.

It is well known President Obama prefers a more pliant regime for the next two years that is amenable to making concessions with the Palestinians, and perhaps open to have Turkey and Qatar weigh in.

Ankara and Doha are seen as important regional players as they host US military bases in the fight against ISIS, and given their influence over Hamas, Secretary Kerry had endorsed an Ankara-Doha ceasefire plan during Operation Protective Edge.

With Obama appointing Robert Malley as new middle east envoy, known for his support of the Brotherhood and Hamas, this option of being open to Turkey and Qatar’s role in the peace talks is a nonstarter should Prime Minister Netanyahu remain in power.

So with the US seemingly backing the Muslim Brotherhood in the region, quo vadis the Middle East?

Ironically, it is Russia and China that are arising to stem the expansion of the Brotherhood–backing Assad in Syria, supplying arms and investments to al-Sisi in Egypt–and calling US out in its foreign meddling with Beijing accusing US of using “democracy” and “human rights” as fig leaves for regime change, while Putin calls US-sponsored regime change as “missile-bomb democracy.”

And when the Obama administration criticized China for not backing western blueprints for regime change in Syria, a Chinese ambassador questioned US wisdom and influence in the mideast and retorted ‘you cannot even protect your own ambassador,” following US-sponsored regime change in Libya and the assassination of Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Security is a human right, not just free election and political expression

Beijing and Moscow may have a point in prioritizing security and stability over western “democracy” and “human rights.” In the Mideast, living in security is a basic human right.

China, for example, is a successful economic powerhouse soon to surpass the US because the regime understands that security and maintaining stability (维稳 weiwen) are the sine qua non to foster trade, commerce and ultimately economic development, with eventual spillovers to the social and political sectors.

Although the US often condemns Beijing for lack of democracy and human rights defined narrowly by free election and political expression, looking at US attempts to promote democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya where ISIS and jihadi groups run rampant, this is not an attractive option for a country of 1.36 billion people.

Moreover, China’s protests that it does support human rights by preserving stability and lifting 700 million Chinese citizens out of poverty deserve some credit. A country traumatized by its history of violent instability that killed millions of Chinese—estimated 3.5 million in the Chinese civil war, 30 million in the Great Leap Forward, 1.5 million in the Cultural Revolution—stability and gradual economic and social development, rather than western model of instant democracy, is the rightful path for the Chinese people.

Furthermore, human rights should also encompass the right to live in security and freedom from fear of terrorist attacks.

In the West, a false dichotomy has arisen between the need for security and the protection of human rights within the context of the fight against terrorism. However, security itself is a fundamental human right, and as former UK Home Secretary David Blunkett argued: “I believe in civil liberties—I believe in the liberty of the individual to walk freely on the streets, and to be safe in their homes.”

A later Home Secretary Jacqui Smith similarly argued that the first freedom is “the freedom that comes from security,” something that Egypt’s al Sisi and Israel’s Netanyahu deeply understand.

Indeed Bibi deserves much credit for maintaining security in a volatile region and preserving a stable economy, despite criticism that he focused on security issues to the detriment of economic concerns.

One ponders how well an economy will perform when 3,500 rockets are raining down within one month, or if additional missiles fired at population centers in Israel come from the West Bank in addition to Gaza.

Similarly, al Sisi also understood Morsi’s collaboration with Sinai jihadi groups threatened Suez Canal stability that is key to Egypt’s economic future, and took over the reins in order to secure and stabilize the region.

With Egypt earning $5 billion a year in Suez Canal revenues, al Sisi is now enlarging the Canal to increase revenues to $13 billion by 2023, a vital source of hard currency for a country that has suffered a slump in tourism and foreign investments since 2011.

And despite the Obama administration’s good intentions of promoting ‘democracy’ by defining it narrowly as free elections, it seems to operate with a blind spot to the Muslim Brotherhood’s ultimate agenda towards an undemocratic theocracy under Shariah law.

As Turkey’s President Erdogan had declared, “democracy is a train that you get off once you reach your destination.” Egypt’s Morsi from the Muslim Brotherhood indeed sought to enshrine Islamic Shariah law in its new constitution after gaining power by democratic elections, and it is difficult to see how encroaching on women, religious, and other minority rights under Morsi’s constitution would have advanced democracy or human rights.

Thus regardless of who wins the election on 17 March, the Obama administration should reset US-Israel relations and fully support Israel, as well as Egypt and Jordan’s fight against radical Islam in the region.

President Obama already missed a chance to stand with the free world in the Paris unity march. Rather than focusing solely on regime change to install the Muslim Brotherhood that is destabilizing the mideast, Obama now has a second chance to stand with regional allies in their battle against terrorism, and have US stand on the right side of history.

Courtesy of Times of Israel.

 

Operation Bishop, Palestinians in Texas Arrested

Posted on by

Operation Bishop investigators raided an arcade Wednesday privately located behind a small shopping center in
Brownsville.
District Attorney investigators received a tip on its operation, and several weeks of surveillance found that owners at the establishment were paying in cash prizes exceeding the legal limit.
The motherboards of 42 machines were seized; $920 in U.S. currency; and several electronics. The establishment was  located at the 300 block of Kings Hwy.

BROWNSVILLE, Texas — A raid at an underground casino allegedly operated by two Palestinian men located near the Texas border resulted in the arrest of the two managers as well as the seizure of 18 machines and over two thousand dollars in bulk cash. Breitbart Texas reporter Ildefonso Ortiz was embedded with the law enforcement officials during the raid and captured the photographic information shown below.

The raid was the result of an investigation by the Cameron County District Attorney’s Office which has taken a hard stance against the underground establishments since they act as a magnet for criminal activity, the agency’s spokeswoman Melissa Landin said to Breitbart Texas.

Official arrested Ismail Abu Assad Abdel Aziz, 41, and Fayez Z. Rafidi, 39. The two men were charged with Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity, Gambling Promotion, Displaying a Coin Operated Machine with Tax Due, and Operating without a License or Registration Certificate.

The illegal casino was located in the 3500 block of Southmost Road in Brownsville, Texas. Cameron County officials told Breitbart Texas they seized a total of 24 gambling machine motherboards, $2,171 in cash and a 2006 Ford van..

“We had been here before, our investigators regularly check places with a history of this kind of activity to make sure they don’t open up again,” Landin said.

The arcade machines lined the wall of a small wooden home that had been turned into a makeshift casino that according to patrons was being run by Palestinians. Breitbart Texas was given access to the underground establishment as the investigators raided the place. The house was right behind a gas station which is where the first casino had been at. Several patrons covered their faces in order to not have their faces photographed during the raid. Investigators detained five patrons and released them after giving them a gambling citation; however the two managers of the place were not so lucky.

“No pictures, do not take my picture,” one of the men screamed as he was being hauled away by cops. One of the patrons described the two managers as Palestinians.

While underground gaming parlors appear to be benign and are frequented by elderly people, those types of businesses have been used for money laundering by people tied to criminal organizations, Landin said.

“They also attract other criminal activity,” she said. “There have been armed robberies that have gone unreported because they don’t want to alert us about the activity inside. This is not a safe place for grandma to be playing at.”

As a response to what had been rapid increase in the number of underground casinos along the Texas border and the crime they brought along with them including possible ties to Mexican cartels, the Cameron County  DA’s Office teamed up with various state and federal agencies to crack down on them in what has been called Operation Bishop.

So far Operation Bishop has been responsible for more than 40 raids at underground casinos near the Texas border, multiple arrests and more than $150,000 in seized bulk cash; other assets are still being fought in court in forfeiture proceedings.

At the end of the raid, investigators stapled a series of signs around the property showing that buildings were in the process of being seized.