UK: PM Cameron and the Queen’s Plan on Militant Islam

Posted on May 3, 2016May 3, 2016 by Denise Simon

Well, it appears the United Kingdom is about to launch a program and the Queen is announcing the plan. But the details are troublesome, in fact watered down dramatically, but could it be a start?

New anti-extremism powers to be included in Queen’s speech

Legislation expected to include measures to ban groups, close down premises and gag individuals

Guardian: David Cameron is expected to announce plans to crack down on extremism in the Queen’s speech, including powers to ban organisations, close down premises and gag individuals.

The legislation follows publication of the government’s counter-extremism strategy which also promised a full investigation into the application of sharia law in the UK.

The review has already been announced, but the Home Office is expected to appoint a chair shortly.

A Downing Street spokesman said he would not speculate on the contents of the Queen’s speech, to be held at the state opening of parliament on 18 May, but sources said that legislation was required to introduce the measures announced in October as part of the strategy.

It promised to ban radical preachers from posting material online, and bar anyone with extremist views from working with children. It also said that deradicalisation classes should be mandatory.

There are also plans to allow Ofcom to block broadcasts of “unacceptable extremist material”.

However, there appear to be questions still remaining. A Home Office source told the Times: “Getting agreement about the thresholds for what constitutes extremism and what needs to be protected as free speech is not going to be easy or straightforward.”

****** The HM Strategy document is here.

A sampling of the strategy:

Engaging internationally

This strategy focuses on extremism at home but recognises that the flow of people, ideology and money is increasingly international. We will develop a clear plan of international work to reinforce our efforts to defeat extremism at home. We will also campaign to build a more robust international response to counter extremist ideology and propaganda and continue to focus on strengthening international bodies and our partners. This will be a key priority for our network of diplomatic missions, working through international institutions such as the United Nations, the Commonwealth and the European Union and through government and civil society partners. In particular, this will include steps to:

counter extremist ideology: we will use our international network to better understand the nature and appeal of extremist ideology, learning from and sharing international best practice to improve the effectiveness of our response;

build partnerships with all those opposed to extremism: we will expand our partnerships with governments and multilateral groups overseas to reduce the threat to the UK via concerted international action including tackling extremism online; and

disrupt extremists: we will strengthen data sharing arrangements with our overseas posts to ensure that key decision makers – including visa officials – are fully informed about individuals’ links to extremist groups. This will involve particularly close collaboration with the Extremism Analysis Unit.

We will work with our international partners to support implementation of the United Nations Secretary General’s Action Plan on Preventing Violent Extremism which is intended to frame what all UN member states and agencies are expected to do to tackle violent extremism. This effort will include building the capacity of international institutions and our partners, to reduce the extremist threats to UK interests emanating from overseas and thereby reinforce delivery of this strategy.44. We will also ensure that our aid programmes address the underlying drivers, enablers and narratives of extremism, particularly through efforts to build stability and security overseas. We will use the joint Conflict, Stability and Security Fund to enable greater work across Government to address transnational threats such as extremism.45. Finally, we will support collective efforts across government to engage and positively influence British communities, explaining the UK’s foreign, security and development work, and raising awareness of the impact it has overseas.

***** The 250,000 EU migrants ‘that weren’t counted’: Explosive report says official figures are underestimating number by 50,000 a year meaning migration from inside Europe is now higher than the rest of the world combined

Its report said: ‘Between 2010 and 2015 the population born in the EU8 and living in the UK increased by an average of 90,000 a year but during the same period estimated net migration from the EU8 averaged only 40,000.

‘This suggests that EU8 net migration has been undercounted by 50,000 a year in the last five years.’

Obama Gives Qatar Top Grade, then Trump

Posted on May 2, 2016May 2, 2016 by Denise Simon

Remember it was Qatar that was the designated headquarters for the Taliban, it was also Qatar that provided a ClubMed resort for the 5 former Gitmo detainees traded for Bowe Bergdahl.

Qatar also hosted the Muslim Brotherhood leadership until they quietly expelled but a few, but the faithfulness still remains.

So how could any businessman do business with Qatar with any conscience?

More here from CNN Money.

Obama Gives Qatar Undeserved A+ on Fighting Incitement

Hate Preachers on Qatar Campus: Obama Gives Qatar Undeserved A+ on Fighting Incitement

David Andrew Weinberg

“Kill the infidels… Count them in number and do not spare one.” Blatant religious incitement of this sort feels like such a caricature of radical Islam that it borders on the implausible. Yet it is happening right under the noses of six prestigious American universities on their satellite campuses in Qatar.

Although this incitement violates a prominent pledge by Qatar’s government to the U.S. administration, President Obama gave Qatar’s Emir Tamim a free pass on the issue after they met in Riyadh on Thursday. Their one-on-one meeting was on the sidelines of a U.S.-Gulf summit, following which the President signed onto a joint communique that said America “commended” the Gulf states for their efforts to combat terrorism. Among these, it praised “actions by Gulf partners to counter ISIL’s hateful ideology and message, and more broadly to counter violent extremism.”

Yet there can be no more pivotal component to the Islamic State’s hateful ideology than its call to murder infidels. Thus, even if President Obama has chosen to give the Qatari regime an undeserved A+ report card on combating religious incitement, legislators who represent these public and private American schools must urgently speak out. Similarly, conscientious students, faculty, and other community members at these schools should spread the word and stand up in opposition to this dangerous new development on campus.

These particular hateful remarks about killing infidels were delivered on March 18th by preacher Mudassir Ahmed at the main mosque in Education City – a project of the quasi-governmental Qatar Foundation. The sprawling Education City campus, located not far from downtown Doha, is also home to satellite programs for Virginia Commonwealth, Cornell, Georgetown, Northwestern, Carnegie Mellon, and Texas A&M Universities. Since the mosque was inaugurated last year, the Foundation has promoted a slew of appearances there by speakers with records of religious incitement.

The Foundation’s newspaper regularly encourages readers to “join the QF community for prayer” at the Education City Mosque and to “avail the services of the Education City buses to and from the mosque.” The Foundation’s Housing and Residence Life office reportedly emailed students to inform them that the mosque’s Friday sermons would be translated into English “to ensure that everyone is benefiting.” As for hate preacher Mudassir Ahmed in particular, the Foundation promoted his sermon in advance on social media, posting and reposting a flier with its logo as well as that of Qatar’s Ministry of Endowments and Islamic Affairs.

That sermon, however, was not the first time incitement was uttered from the Education City Mosque. Last November, less than a week before Michelle Obama visited Doha to address a conference at the Foundation, Saudi preacher Tareq al-Hawas used its pulpit to condemn “the aggressor Zionists,” urging God to “count them in number and kill them completely; do not spare one.” And just this month, a different preacher with a record of glorifying Hamas (including specifically its military wing) called at the campus’s mosque for God to “render victorious our brothers the mujahideen… in every place” and even to “guide their shooting.”

Such language should not have come as a surprise. Ahmed had delivered similar remarks in a 2013 sermon at Qatar’s state-controlled Grand Mosque, where another preacher called just last year for Allah to “destroy” Christians, Alawites, Shi’ites and Jews. Also in 2013, Hawas reportedly lamented on air that Hitler had not “finished off” the Jews, thus “relieving humanity” of them. And in spite of Hawas’s 2015 incitement at the Education City Mosque, he was just invited back, delivering additional militaristic remarks there on March 11th, just one week before Ahmed’s outrageous appearance.

In fact, every Friday preacher at the mosque this March has had a distinguished past record of religious incitement. Omar Abdelkafi, who addressed the mosque on March 25th, is an Egyptian fundamentalist who recently declared that the Charlie Hebdo murders in Paris were “the sequel to the comedy film of 9/11,” in which Muslims “played no part.” He also seems to have instructed pious Muslims not to shake hands with Christians or even walk on the same sidewalk.

And on March 4th, the Education City Mosque hosted Mohammed al-Arefe, a prominent hardliner from Saudi Arabia with more followers on Twitter than Beyoncé. In the past, Arefe has reportedly described Shi’ite Muslims as purveyors of “treachery” and “evil,” and in 2013 as “non-believers who must be killed” according to Human Rights Watch. He has allegedly offered tips on wife-beating, called Osama bin Laden a “sheikh,” and proclaimed that “one’s devotion to jihad for the sake of Allah and one’s will to shed blood, smash skulls, and chop off body parts… constitute an honor for the believer.”

This was not the first time any of these four preachers was permitted to deliver a guest sermon at the Education City Mosque. Nor are they its only speakers with a record of hate speech. When the facility was inaugurated a year ago, the Foundation misleadingly proclaimed that it reflected a “strong commitment” to pluralism.

Yet the mosque’s guest preacher for that very event was Saudi cleric Saleh al-Moghamsy, who had previously opined on Qatari TV that bin Laden died with more dignity than any Christian, Jew, Zoroastrian, apostate, or atheist simply by virtue of being a Muslim. Moghamsy has also asserted that God created women as an “ornament“ to men. Another guest preacher at the mosque has previously declared that “the dumbest girl is that who judges her beauty with the number of those who molest her. This poor idiot girl does no [sic] know that flies fall only on stinking things.”

[“Skyline of Doha at Night”; Source: Wikipedia]

Freedom of speech is a touchstone of the American academy, and freedom of religion is a fundamental American value enshrined in the Bill of Rights. But that doesn’t mean these six U.S. universities should remain silent in the face of such blatant hate speech. President Obama missed a real opportunity to make clear that Qatar’s embrace of such hate preachers violates its 2014 pledge to aid the fight against the Islamic State by “repudiating their hateful ideology.” Even the Emir himself has embraced several such hate preachers in the past year. And providing prestigious platforms to those who advocate killing infidels would seem to be a rather blatant violation of that 2014 pledge.

Further, if these six American colleges turn a blind eye to the problem, they would convey the impression that they care more about Gulf petrodollars than creating a tolerant atmosphere for female students and religious minorities, for whom such incitement could pose even a physical danger on campus. The U.S. universities with programs in Qatar reportedly receive a combined $320 million a year from the Qatar Foundation to sustain their campuses in the energy-rich city state. Cornell alone reportedly receives an astonishing yearly outlay of $122 million.

Of course, such generous, recurring payments give school administrators a powerful incentive to remain silent about the revolving door of hate preachers at the Education City Mosque. But improving the selection of these guest preachers would actually make U.S.-Qatari education programming more sustainable by removing one of the biggest potential obstacles to continued cooperation.

Regardless, these schools may have no choice in the matter. Their students and faculty have already begun to raise concerns about systematic labor abuses in Qatar, as well as potential risks to academic inquiry in a nation that throws people in jail for insulting religion or the ruler.

There are many more people of good conscience in student government, campus groups, faculty bodies, and university boards who would be shocked to learn about the appalling promotion of hate speech inside Qatar’s glittering Education City. They can and should let their voices be heard.

Clintons Paying Legal Fees for email Server Agent

Posted on April 29, 2016April 29, 2016 by Denise Simon

In 2014, the Hillary server domain registration was changed to Perfect Privacy, a proxy company that allows domain users to shield their identities. It’s a common practice among domain owners who don’t want their personal information listed on a public database.

Per Gawker: A source says at least two top Clinton aides used her private email accounts to conduct government business, putting their official communications outside the control of federal record-keeping regulations.

The source named Philippe Reines and Abedin as the employees who used Clinton’s private email addresses in the course of their agency duties.

Reines served as deputy assistant secretary of state, and Abedin as Clinton’s deputy chief of staff. They are two of Clinton’s most loyal confidantes in and out of the State Department, Gawker reported. More here.

Related: Lawyers for Hillary’s team

Report: Clintons Are Paying Legal Bills For Aide Who Registered Private Email Address

DailyCaller: The Clintons have paid “hundreds of thousands of dollars” to cover the legal bills for a Bill Clinton aide who sits at the center of the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

That’s according to Washington Times opinion editor Monica Crowley who reports in a new column that a knowledgeable source tells her that the Clintons are covering legal expenses for Justin Cooper, a longtime aide to the former president.

Such an arrangement would raise questions over whether the Clintons are paying Cooper’s bills in order to ensure that they have some oversight of his interactions with federal investigators. It would also raise questions about whether the Clintons are paying other aides’ legal costs.

Cooper registered clintonemail.com in his own name on Jan. 13, 2009. That email domain is the same one Hillary Clinton exclusively used to send work-related emails as secretary of state. Emails sent on that account were stored on a server that the Clintons kept at their personal residence in New York.

According to Crowley, Cooper’s role in helping set up Clinton’s mysterious email arrangement has put him in the FBI’s cross hairs. She reports:

A source familiar with Mr. Cooper’s arrangement with the Clintons tells me that they have paid his legal fees associated with the FBI investigation, amounting to “hundreds of thousands of dollars.” They aren’t paying those costs out of a sense of decency. They’re paying them because he knows the “why” of the server, which may very well have been to make it easier for the foundation to hustle big donations.

One wonders what, if anything, Mr. Cooper is telling the FBI —and whether the whole sordid Clinton house of cards will be left standing.

The FBI seized Clinton’s server last year after it was determined that some of her emails contained classified information. And now, investigators are reportedly poised to interview aides who have knowledge about the system.

And according to a Fox News report from earlier this year, the FBI’s investigation has expanded to a public corruption probe which centers on the intersection of the Clinton Foundation and State Department.

Cooper could also be embroiled in that aspect of the investigation, according to Crowley, who also works as a Fox News analyst.

The little-known Cooper has worked for the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings, a consulting firm with close ties to the Clintons. Along with Doug Band — Bill Clinton’s former “body man,” a former counselor to the Clinton Foundation, and a co-founder of Teneo — Cooper kept in contact with Clinton’s State Department aides, emails from Clinton’s account show. One of those aides is Huma Abedin, who served as Clinton’s deputy chief of staff while also working for Teneo.

The overlap has raised questions over whether the Clinton Foundation and Teneo were using access to the State Department to help raise money and attract clients.

The possibility that the Clintons are paying legal bills for aides embroiled in the FBI investigation has already been broached by Congress.

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley has asked lawyers for the Clintons and Abedin — as well as for former Clinton aides Cheryl Mills, Philippe Reines, and Jake Sullivan — if they have entered any “joint defense agreements.”

The Iowa Republican has asserted that such arrangements could pose conflicts of interest because they would help ensure that the Clinton insiders refrained from providing evidence that could be detrimental to the Clintons.

The lawyers have refused to say if those arrangements have been made.

Grassley has also asked whether the Clintons are covering legal costs for Bryan Pagliano, the former information technology specialist who set up and managed Clinton’s private email server. But Pagliano’s lawyer, Mark MacDougall of the Clinton-connected law firm Akin Gump, has also refused to say if such an arrangement is in place. Pagliano has since entered an immunity deal with the FBI in exchange for his cooperation in the investigation.

Some evidence has emerged suggesting that the Clintons are paying legal bills for those embroiled in the email fiasco.

In October it was reported that the Denver-based IT company that handled Clinton’s server after she left the State Department had submitted an invoice to Clinton seeking payment for legal and public relations expenses.

The company, Platte River Networks, had control of Clinton’s server when it was turned over to the FBI. It billed Clinton’s accountant, Marcum LLP., nearly $50,000 for legal and PR expenses.

The Clinton campaign and the Clinton Foundation did not respond to The Daily Caller’s requests for comment.

General Dunford: No Fair Fight

Posted on April 27, 2016April 27, 2016 by Denise Simon

Secretary Carter’s Opening Remarks

No Fair Fights for U.S. Troops, Chairman Says

DefenseDept: WASHINGTON, April 27, 2016 — The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff repeated to the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee what has become a mantra to him: he doesn’t believe the United States should ever send American service members into a fair fight.

“Rather, we have to maintain a joint force that has the capability and credibility to assure our allies and partners, deter aggression and overmatch any potential adversary,” Marine Corps Gen. Joe Dunford, who was joined by Defense Secretary Ash Carter, told the committee members.

Carter and Dunford provided testimony on Defense Department’s fiscal year 2017 budget request.

Improving current capabilities, restoring full-spectrum readiness and developing leaders for the future are key to maintaining the greatest advantage the U.S. military has over any rival — its people, the chairman said.

No Shortage of Challengers

The United States has no shortage of challengers from state adversaries to non-traditional foes. The five challenges the Defense Department’s fiscal year 2017 budget request focuses on are Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and violent extremism.

Russia, China, North Korea and Iran continue to invest in military capabilities that look for the soft spot in American defenses, Dunford said. “They are also advancing their interests through competition with a military dimension that falls short of traditional armed conflict and the threshold for a traditional military response,” he said.

The actions of Russia in Ukraine, China in the South China Sea and Iran throughout the Middle East are examples of the challenges the DoD must address, he said.

But the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and al-Qaida still pose dangers to the homeland, the American people and friends, allies and partners, the general said. “Given the opportunity, such extremist groups would fundamentally change our way of life,” he said.

Nuclear Capabilities

Added to these challenges is the priority to modernize the nuclear capabilities of the United States, Dunford said.

The nuclear triad underpins deterrence in the world, but new domains also must be considered, the chairman said. Space and cyberspace are now realms of combat, and the nation must develop and maintain credible capabilities in these realms as well, he said.

Underlying all these threats is the reality of the fiscal environment, Dunford added.

“Despite partial relief from Congress on sequester-level funding, the department has absorbed $800 billion in cuts and faces an additional $100 billion of sequestration-induced risk through fiscal 2021,” he said. “Absorbing significant cuts over the past five years has resulted in our under-investing in critical capabilities. Unless we reverse sequestration, we will be unable to execute the current defense strategy.”

Right Trajectory

Overall, he told the senators, DoD’s FY 17 budget request “puts us on the right trajectory, but it will require your support to ensure the joint force has the depth, flexibility, readiness and responsiveness that ensures our men and women will never face a fair fight.”

But, the chairman warned, a bow wave of requirements lie ahead, including those tied to the Ohio-class submarine replacement program, continued cyber and space investment programs and the B-21 long-range bomber program

A New Scheme for Syrian Refugees?

Posted on April 26, 2016April 26, 2016 by Denise Simon

Infographic: The screening process for refugee entry into the U.S.
Download graphic

Refugees Welcome graphic — **By the numbers: What you need to know about Syrian refugees in the U.S.**
Download graphic

“Alternative Safe Pathways” for Syrian Refugees – Resettlement in Disguise?

By Nayla Rush

CIS.org: With the Syrian crisis entering its sixth year, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is thinking of “innovative approaches” to organize Syrian admissions, alongside the refugee resettlement program, to countries willing to welcome them. UNHCR’s target for resettlement is 480,000 places over the next three years; it is not sure how many additional admissions into the U.S. and elsewhere these new “alternative safe pathways” will ensure. Refugees who are not resettled could be “legally admitted” using various routes described below.

The legitimacy and transparency of these new “alternative pathways,” aimed at admitting increasing numbers of Syrian refugees into the United States without calling them “refugees,” remain to be seen. They might even amount to convenient admissions detours at a time when the U.S. refugee resettlement program is under tight scrutiny.

In a panel discussion on The Global Refugee Crisis: Moral Dimensions and Practical Solutions organized by the Brookings Institution earlier this year, Beth Ferris, Research Professor at Georgetown University and adviser to the United Nations Secretary General on humanitarian refugee policy, talked about the need to find different solutions to the ongoing humanitarian Syrian crisis. The refugee resettlement program was no longer sufficient to admit Syrian refugees she said; “alternative safe pathways” are needed:

Refugees and government officials are expecting this crisis to last 10 or 15 years. It’s time that we no longer work as business as usual … UNHCR next month [March 2016] is convening a meeting to look at what are being called “alternative safe pathways” for Syrian refugees. Maybe it’s hard for the U.S. to go from 2,000 to 200,000 refugees resettled in a year, but maybe there are ways we can ask our universities to offer scholarships to Syrian students. Maybe we can tweak some of our immigration policies to enable Syrian-Americans who have lived here to bring not only their kids and spouses but their uncles and their grandmothers. There may be ways that we could encourage Syrians to come to the U.S. without going through this laborious, time-consuming process of refugee resettlement.” (Emphasis added.)

The UNHCR conference Ferris was referring to took place in Geneva this March 30. It is one of a series of initiatives aimed at comprehensively addressing the Syrian crisis in 2016. The Geneva “High-level meeting on global responsibility sharing through pathways for admission of Syrian refugees” focused on the need for a substantial increase in resettlement numbers and for “innovative approaches” to admit Syrian refugees. It followed February’s London Conference on Syria, which stressed the financial aspect of this humanitarian crisis ($12 billion pledged in humanitarian aid) and precedes a September 2016 high-level plenary meeting of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. Worthy of note here, President Obama will host a global refugee summit this September 20 on the margins of this upcoming General Assembly meeting.

The focus of the Geneva meeting was to introduce “other forms of humanitarian admissions” since “[r]esettlement is not the only aim”, explained UNHCR’s spokesperson. UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi appealed to the international community in his opening statement, calling for “alternative avenues” for the admission of Syrian refugees:

These pathways can take many forms: not only resettlement, but also more flexible mechanisms for family reunification, including extended family members, labour mobility schemes, student visa and scholarships, as well as visa for medical reasons. Resettlement needs vastly outstrip the places that have been made available so far… But humanitarian and student visa, job permits and family reunification would represent safe avenues of admission for many other refugees as well.

At the end of the meeting, Grandi highlighted several commitments made by a number of participants in his closing remarks. Promises were made to:

Increase the number of resettlement and humanitarian admission places.

Ease family reunification and increase possibilities for family reunion.

Give scholarships and student visas for Syrian refugees.

Remove administrative barriers and simplify processes to facilitate and expedite the admission of Syrian refugees.

Use resources provided by the private sector in order to create labor mobility schemes for Syrian refugees.

The Geneva meeting was attended by representatives of 92 countries, including the United States. Heather Higginbottom, Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources, reiterated in her remarks the U.S. commitment to refugees: “President Obama has made assisting displaced people a top priority for the U.S. government.” Last year alone the U.S. contributed more than $6 billion to humanitarian causes. So far this year, the United States has provided nearly $2.3 billion in humanitarian assistance worldwide. She also announced additional measures: “We are further increasing our support of Syrian refugees, and we will make additional contributions to the global displacement effort through September, and beyond”, while reminding the participants of President Obama’s role in hosting a high-level refugee summit this September.

The U.S. State Department released a Media Note following the Geneva meeting. It confirmed the goal of resettling at least 10,000 Syrians in FY 2016 and of 100,000 refugees from around the world by the end of FY 2017 – an increase of more that 40 percent since FY 2015. It also announced the following:

“The United States pledged an additional $10 million to UNHCR to strengthen its efforts to identify and refer vulnerable refugees, including Syrians, for resettlement.”

“The United States joins UNHCR in calling for new ways nations, civil society, the private sector, and individuals can together address the global refugee challenge.”

“Additionally, the United States has created a program to allow U.S. citizens and permanent residents to file refugee applications for their Syrian family member.” [Emphasis added.]

On this last note, why create a family reunification program for Syrian refugees when refugees in the U.S. are already entitled to ask for their spouse and unmarried children under 21 to join them? Unless of course, the aim is to widen family circles to include aunts and uncles, brothers and sisters, grandmothers and grandfathers.

Let’s see if we got this right: More Syrian refugees are to be resettled in the United States; administrative barriers (including security checks?) are to be removed to expedite admissions. Come to think of it, this is exactly what we witnessed with the “Surge Operation” in Jordan, where refugee resettlement processes were reduced from 18-24 months to three months in order to meet the target of 10,000 Syrian refugees this year.

Moreover, the United States government, by its own admission, “joins UNHCR in calling for new ways” to move more Syrians to other countries. With the U.S. Refugee Resettlement program under close scrutiny, other routes for “legal admissions” (not “resettlement”) of Syrian refugees into the United States seem more appropriate. Those routes may vary from private sponsorships, labor schemes, expanded family reunification programs, humanitarian visas, medical evacuation, to academic scholarships and apprenticeships, etc.

What remains to be determined is how transparent these “alternative pathways” will be. Will we be given details about numbers, profiles, locations, screening, or costs? Also, what additional measures are we to expect from this administration as it prepares to host a Global Refugee Summit this September 20?

Meanwhile, we are left to wonder: aren’t these “pathways” for refugees nothing more than disguised resettlement routes? Akin to “pathways to citizenship” in lieu of amnesty…