Iran to Obama and Kerry, in Your Faces Dudes

Posted on October 14, 2015October 14, 2015 by Denise Simon

U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929 stipulates that Iran cannot engage in any activities related to ballistic missiles.

U.S. to refer Iran missile test to U.N. over possible violation

Washington (CNN) The State Department said Tuesday it would refer Iran’s firing of a new surface-to-surface ballistic missile to the United Nations Security Council for review to determine whether the test violated a U.N. resolution.

“It’s deeply concerning that this latest violation does appear to be a violation of U.N. Security Council resolution 1929, and we’ll obviously raise this at the [Security Council] as we have done with previous launches,” State Department deputy spokesman Mark Toner told reporters.

“We’ve seen for the past years that Iran has consistently ignored U.N. Security Council resolutions,” he added.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters Tuesday that while the launch was likely a violation of a Security Council resolution, it was distinct and separate from the nuclear accord reached with Iran earlier this year.

“In contrast to the repeated violations of the U.N. Security Council resolution that pertains to their ballistic missile activities, we’ve seen that Iran over the last couple of years has demonstrated a track record of abiding by the commitments that they made in the context of the nuclear talks,” he said.

Iran entered a final nuclear deal with the U.S. and five other world powers in July that is focused on restricting Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon.

U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929 stipulates that Iran cannot engage in any activities related to ballistic missiles.

A newer U.N. Security Council resolution, number 2231, implementing the deal and banning Iran from engaging in activities related to ballistic missiles designed to carry nuclear warheads is not yet in effect.

Over the weekend, state-run media reported that Iran successfully test-fired a new precision-guided, long-range missile.

The Emad (Pillar) surface-to-surface missile, designed and built by Iranian experts, is the country’s first long-range missile that can be precision-guided until it reaches its target, said Brig. Gen. Hossein Dehqan, Iran’s defense minister.

The Emad would be Tehran’s first precision-guided missile with the range to reach its enemy, Israel.

Israel is bitterly opposed to Iran’s nuclear program, and observers have speculated that it could be prepared to launch pre-emptive strikes on Iranian nuclear sites in an effort to derail their progress.

Dehqan said after the launch that the Emad would greatly increase Iran’s strategic deterrence capability, state media reported.

“To follow our defense programs, we don’t ask permission from anyone,” he said, according to state-run news agency IRNA. *** Due to regional fighter jet activity and testing missiles, commercial flights either get canceled or rerouted.

Hong Kong airline Cathay Pacific said Wednesday it has stopped flying over Iran and the Caspian Sea following an air safety agency warning about Russian missiles fired at Syria.

The airline’s decision to reroute flights comes after Russia stepped up its military campaign against Islamic State group fighters in Syria. It started firing cruise missiles from its military warships in the Caspian Sea on Sept. 30.

“In view of the situation in the region, Cathay Pacific suspended all flights over Iran and Caspian Sea since last Thursday until further notice,” the airline said in a statement. “We continue to monitor and review the situation on a daily basis.”

The European Aviation Safety Agency issued a safety bulletin to airlines last week about cruise missiles targeted at Syrian rebels fired by Russian warships in the Caspian Sea. It said the missiles must cross Iran and Iraq below flight routes used by commercial aircraft.

Cathay added that it has had a long-term policy of not overflying Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine and Syria.

The agency said it was not making specific recommendations with its bulletin, which was issued to inform airspace users about the potential hazard. Air France said earlier this week it was taking special measures regarding overflying Iran and the Caspian Sea following the agency’s warning.

Airlines are more cautious about flying over conflict zones since the downing of a Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 last year amid a conflict between Russia-backed separatists and Ukrainian government forces. Two-thirds of the 298 people who died were Dutch and a Dutch Safety Board report released this week said the jet was destroyed by a Buk surface-to-air missile fired from an area controlled by Russia-backed separatist rebels.

Not finished yet, it gets worse:

JPost: Iran’s Revolutionary Guard on Wednesday revealed an underground bunker in which it stores long-range ballistic missiles, Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency reported.

Footage of the underground missile bunker was aired on Iranian state television. According to Fars, a number of ballistic missiles were shown in the underground tunnel including a model with a range of 2,000 kilometers.

Fars quoted Amir Ali Hajizadeh, head of the Revolutionary Guard’s aerospace branch, as saying that the missiles represented the next generation of Iranian long-range missile technology.

The missile bunker shown is one of many that are buried as deep as “500 meters below the high mountains,” Fars reported.

Iran state television showed on Sunday what it said was a successful launch of the new Iranian missile, named Emad, which appears to be Tehran’s first precision-guided weapon with the range to strike its regional enemy Israel.

A total of 220 of Iran’s 290 lawmakers praised the missile test on Wednesday, announcing their full support of measures that “strengthen Iran’s defense capabilities.”

The US State Department said that the missile test was an apparent violation of a UN Security Council resolution and Washington will raise it at the United Nations.

“We’ll obviously raise this at the UNSC as we have done in previous launches,” State Department spokesman Mark Toner told reporters, noting the test appeared to be a violation of U.N. Security resolution 1929.

He and White House spokesman Josh Earnest both said the issue was separate from a deal Iran struck in July with six world powers, which seeks to curb Tehran’s atomic program in return for having sanctions against it eased.

Ballistic missile tests by Iran are banned under Security Council resolution 1929, which dates from 2010 and remains valid until the July 14 nuclear deal goes into effect.

Once the deal takes effect, Iran will still be “called upon” not to undertake any ballistic missiles work designed to deliver nuclear weapons for a period of up to eight years, according to a Security Council resolution adopted in July.

The resolution says that when the deal is in effect countries will be allowed to transfer missile technology and heavy weapons to Iran on a case-by-case basis with council approval.

However, at the time the resolution was drafted, a U.S. official called this provision meaningless and said the United States would veto any suggested transfer of missile technology to Iran.

Speaking on Tuesday, White House spokesman Earnest made clear countries could more to stop the flow of ballistic missile technology to Iran.

“That is work that requires international cooperation,” he said, adding that Washington was ready to work with Gulf allies to counter Iran’s ballistic missile program.

Strong Cities Network or Global Police?

Posted on October 13, 2015October 13, 2015 by Denise Simon

What’s the Goal of DOJ’s Strong Cities Network?

by Johanna Markind
American Thinker
October 8, 2015

On September 29, 2015, with the endorsement of Attorney General Loretta Lynch, a group called the Strong Cities Network was launched at the United Nations.

According to its website, Strong Cities “aims to connect cities and other local authorities on an international basis, to enhance local level approaches to prevent violent extremism; including facilitating information sharing, mutual learning and creation of new and innovative local practices.”

Reportedly, the “network will conduct workshops and training, will offer online documents of best practices, and will offer grants for innovative initiatives. The US State Department will provide funds through 2016, at which time charities are expected to take over funding.” A summit is scheduled to take place next spring in Paris.

The group includes 23 cities, including four from the US: Minneapolis, New York, Denver, and Atlanta. Minneapolis is also one of three US cities – the other two being Boston and Los Angeles – the Obama Administration selected to participate in its Countering Violent Extremism pilot program.

The Strong Cities Program has been criticized by the New York Civil Liberties Union and by American Muslim activists fearful it will target Muslims. Similar criticisms have been leveled against the Department of Justice Countering Violent Extremism program, notably by the Islamist-posing-as-civil-rights group Council on American-Islamic Relations. New York groups like the NYCLU, Association of Muslim American Lawyers and the Justice League NYC expressed concern New York would eventually become active with the Justice Department’s “Countering Violent Extremism,” or CVE, programs, which they say “overwhelmingly” target Muslim communities.

Given this sort of challenge, and the Obama Administration‘s own predilections, it is unsurprising that the program avoids connecting its target to radical Islam. Its stated goals include addressing “violent extremism in all of its forms” without associating violent extremism “with any particular religion, nationality or ethnic group.” It emphasizes inclusiveness, collaboration, and non-discrimination “in compliance with international human rights standards.”

The Attorney General’s remarks likewise avoided referring to any specific religion. The closest she came was to refer vaguely to “groups like ISIL,” and ecumenically to “fanatics motivated by hatred against religious or ethnic factions,” and explained, “all are antithetical to the shared vision and common cause that joins us.”

Similarly, in his remarks at the International Institute for Justice and the Rule of Law’s “More Effective Responses to the Foreign Terrorist Fighter Threat” event the day before the Strong Cities launch, Assistant Attorney General John Carlin managed to avoid all references to Islam, and all reference to Muslims save to describe ISIL as “a group that beheads and kills Muslims and non-Muslims with the same impunity,” and to focus on the need to broadcast “the damage they [ISIL] are doing to Muslim communities.”

The refusal to identify radical Islam as the focus of the Strong Cities Network – indeed, Mayor DeBlasio‘s insistence that it would not focus on any one type of extremism and references to the shooting of African-American churchgoers in Charleston and the past attacks on Planned Parenthood clinics – has in turn stoked fears that it will target conservative groups and criticism of its close cooperation with the United Nations. (Regarding the latter, it is difficult to take seriously an organization that puts Saudi Arabia in charge of its Human Rights Commission; the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, Saudi Prince Zeid Ra’ad Hussein, was scheduled to be present at the launch.)

Are Lynch’s remarks, and the Strong Cities Network’s self-description, necessary diplomatic niceties for a program designed to deal with violent Islamism? Or will the program blunt its utility by taking on too many tasks? For example, how many resources will it devote to combating right-wing extremism?

The refusal of the program, and of Lynch and Carlin, to speak plainly about violent Islamism and the need to defeat it, does not bode well for its chances of success at that task. To quote former US Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, “You can’t defeat an enemy that you don’t admit exists.”

*** Deeper layer peeled back:

From John Whitehead, founder of the Rutherford Institute
Now, with Strong Cities Network, U.S. cities will be cooperating and “sharing resources” with foreign governments around the world. Local police are already training with FBI, DHS and even the military. Obama’s new program lays the groundwork for them to train with foreign police units under the banner of the U.N.

“With the Strong Cities program we see the goal is to have global police, so it’s going to be very hard to rein in global cops,” Whitehead said. “Cops who were trained locally are going by the wayside, dealing solely with local cops is going to be a thing of the past. It’s sort of in your face, it’s saying the U.N. is going to be a global police force, working in this country one way or the other. New York City, L.A., Chicago are going to lead the way. Americans better get ready for this because what it means is, our Constitution is being replaced, and the constitutional protections we have eventually will be gone.”

Among the first steps taken will involve merging some of the law-enforcement capacities within regions, with U.S. cops cooperating more closely with those of Mexico and Canada, Whitehead said. Click here for Whitehead’s summary and warning from 2010.

Rashid Khalidi, Palestinians and Death

Posted on October 13, 2015October 13, 2015 by Denise Simon

Shocking moment Palestinian drives his car into crowd of Israelis at bus stop and then hacks one of them to death before he is shot by police

As Palestinians Stab Jews, Obama Friend Khalidi Says US Should Stop Supporting Israel

BenShapiro: Rashid Khalidi, President Obama’s favorite Palestinian terrorist apologist, has a piece defending the latest spate of Palestinian terrorism in The New Yorker today.

Khalidi made his name as an advisor to Yassar Arafat’s terrorist Palestine Liberation Organization. He then got a job as a professor at the University of Chicago before moving onto Columbia University, where he took over as chair of the Middle East Studies program, named in honor of terror apologist Edward Said. Khalidi has been a longtime Obama friend and ally; Obama infamously attended a 2003 dinner in honor of Khalidi, tape of which was obtained by the Los Angeles Times. The Times then suppressed the tape.

In today’s New Yorker, Khalidi argues that the Oslo Accords should never have taken place – that somehow, Israel handing over guns and land to Palestinian terrorists, as well as paying all their water and power bills, has been a boon for Israel. Khalidi called Palestinian Authority dictator Mahmoud Abbas’ declaration of an end to Oslo at the United Nations “long overdue” and said that Oslo had resulted in “the current upsurge in violence against Palestinians and settlers in the occupied territories.”

Actually, Jews are being stabbed to death in Jerusalem, the Jewish capital of the State of Israel. And Oslo’s main result was the legitimization of an international terrorist group on the world stage. But Khalidi explains that Oslo was never designed as part of a peace process; instead, it was all a sophisticated Jewish ruse to keep those innocent Palestinians under their thumb. In fact, says Khalidi, “The only part of Oslo that was faithfully implemented, in fact, is the protection that the P.A. provides to Israel by policing its own people.”

If by “policing its own people,” Khalidi means using the guns Israel gave the PA to pursue terrorist activities against Jews, that’s exactly correct. But Khalidi says that now that Abbas has disowned Oslo, it’s time for the United States to embrace a “new paradigm.” That paradigm would follow the lead of “young people, people of color and progressives,” who “oppose unconditional US support for Israel.” Khalidi enthusiastically embraces the possibility of sanctions on Israel, and cheers new polls showing that Democrats only favor Israel over Palestinians by ten points.

Khalidi concludes:

It is time for American politicians and policymakers to stop hiding behind the fictions of Oslo. If they really wish to avoid more of the same, they must abandon bankrupt strategies and meaningless platitudes and act vigorously to end a system of military occupation and colonization that would crumble without their support.

The Khalidi family used to babysit the Obama children. They are ideologically and philosophically aligned. Obama said at the 2003 bash for Khalidi – a bash at which a Palestinian likened Zionists to Osama Bin Laden – that Khalidi’s conversations provided “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases….It’s for that reason that I’m hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid’s dinner table, [but around] this entire world.”

Khalidi told The Los Angeles Times that Obama took a pro-Israel position in 2008 in order to win the election.

The mask is off now, however. President Obama’s ideological allies, from Jeremiah Wright to Khalidi, have spent this week attempting to rip down Israeli self-defense even as Palestinians stab Jewish children in the streets of Israel’s capital. And Obama’s administration says and does nothing. Why would they? They’re on Rashid Khalidi’s side.

EPA Hires Thunderclap….Huh?

Posted on October 13, 2015October 13, 2015 by Denise Simon

Armed EPA Agents? The Truth Is Way Out There

The EPA’s armed war on alien polluters.

AmericanSpectator: Fox Mulder and Dana Scully, the FBI agents on Fox’s The X-Files, have been known to draw weapons on aliens, poltergeists, and phantoms. But they have an excuse — they’re fictional characters in a network TV drama, coming back on-the-air soon after a long hiatus. Not so the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPAs) own, real-life agents. They are packing pistols and even heavier firepower to catch the nation’s contributors to global warming and other, mythical phenomena. Truth is stranger than science fiction in today’s Washington, D.C., and the truth is way out there.

According to a report released last week by a watchdog group called Open the Books, the EPA has spent millions of dollars recently on guns, ammo, body armor, camouflage equipment, and even night-vision goggles to arm its agents in the war on polluters.

The Illinois-based investigative group examined thousands of checks totaling more than $93 billion from 2000 to 2014 by the EPA, and its auditors indicate that about $75 million is authorized each year for “criminal enforcement” of America’s clean air and water laws. This includes cash for a cadre of 200 “special agents” that engage in SWAT-style ops.

“We were shocked ourselves to find these kinds of pervasive expenditures at an agency that is supposed to be involved in clean air and clean water,” said Open the Books’ founder, Adam Andrzejewski, a former candidate for governor of Illinois. “Some of these weapons are for full-scale military operations.”

Some of these military operations have been reported in the media. Two years ago, the EPA was involved in an armed raid at a small town in Alaska where miners were accused of polluting local waters, as Fox News reported that EPA “armed agents in full body armor participated.”

The EPA’s own website describes the activities and mission of the criminal enforcement division as “investigating cases, collecting evidence, conducting forensic analyses and providing legal guidance to assist in the prosecution of criminal conduct that threatens people’s health and the environment.”

Don’t blame President Obama for this alone. The EPA was first given police powers in 1988 during the Reagan era. These days, EPA also conducts joint projects with the Department of Homeland Security as it engages in what a media report calls “environmental crime-fighting.”

“For more than 30 years,” according to the EPA website, “there has been broad, bipartisan agreement about the importance of an armed, fully-equipped team of EPA agents working with state and federal partners to uphold the law and protect Americans.”

But that’s not all that the Open the Books investigators found. Backing up these armed environmental crusaders are scores of highly paid lawyers and other professionals.

The report showed that seven of 10 EPA workers earn more than $100,000 a year, and EPA’s $8 billion budget also finances the salaries of 1,000 attorneys, making the agency one of the biggest law firms in the U.S.

The EPA is hardly going solo in this armed adventure against America, however. The agency has collaborated with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and a recent report by the U.S. Department of Justice indicates that more than 40 federal agencies, with 100,000 officers, carry guns and make arrests.

How far will EPA agents go to enforce the law as they interpret it? The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday issued a temporary stay on the Environmental Protection Agency’s new Clean Water Rule that regulates “waters of the U.S.” The court decided the EPA’’s Rule that originally became effective on August 28, 2015 requires “further judicial analysis.” The new Clean Water Rule defined navigable waters to include tributaries and wetlands, and even puddles caused by rainstorms. The rule defines which waterways would be protected by the Clean Water Act of 1972. A total of 18 states are challenging the new rule. Perhaps the new water rules will be enforced at gunpoint by armed agents if President Obama and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy decide that “environmental justice” requires it.

*** Gina likes Thunderclap, so she hired them for crowd-sourcing positive responses.

Join a Thunderclap for Clean Water

EPA is planning to use a new social media application called Thunderclap to provide a way for people to show their support for clean water and the agency’s proposal to protect it. Here’s how it works: you agree to let Thunderclap post a one-time message on your social networks (Facebook, Twitter or Tumblr) on Monday, September 29 at 2:00 pm EDT. The message will be posted on everyone’s walls and feeds at the same time.
Here’s the message: “Clean water is important to me. I want EPA to protect it for my health, my family, and my community. www.epa.gov/USwaters”

Read about the Thunderclap.

EPA Publishes Final 2012 and Preliminary 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plans

Under Clean Water Act section 304(m), EPA develops biennial plans for issuing new regulations or revising existing regulations to control industrial wastewater discharges. While EPA’s final 2012 plan and preliminary 2014 plan do not propose any new effluent guidelines for industry, EPA is announcing initiation of detailed studies of the petroleum refining industry and centralized waste treatment facilities, and continuation of its preliminary review of the metal finishing industry. EPA will accept public comments on the preliminary 2014 plan through November 17, 2014. Learn more.

Section 319 Success Story: Ionine Creek, Oklahoma

Ionine Creek in Grady County runs through an area of high cattle, wheat, and hog production. An assessment of the creek’s fish community in 2004 revealed a poor biological condition, prompting Oklahoma to add the creek to the state’s Clean Water Act section 303(d) list of impaired waters for biological impairment. Implementation of best management practices to reduce runoff from grazing land and cropland and to improve wildlife habitat decreased sediment and nutrient contributions to the creek and provided better in-stream habitat. As a result, Oklahoma removed Ionine Creek from Oklahoma’s list for fishes bioassessment. Ionine Creek now fully attains its fish and wildlife propagation designated use. The complete success story can be found here.

Who the Hell is Rick Gladstone?

Posted on October 9, 2015October 9, 2015 by Denise Simon

Does anyone….anyone really take some of the editorials printed by the New York Times seriously? Do the editors there even go through a committee approval process? Is J Street, the lobby group, a constant funder of the NYT’s or could it be CAIR (Council for American Islamic Relations) or could the NYT’s be in collusion with NIAC (National Iranian American Council) or could Rick Gladstone and his ‘g0-to’ experts be on additional payrolls?

Hey Rick, here is a documentary for you sir:

Maybe Gladstone is the roommate of Rashid Khalidi.

Well, read on and then you may have additional questions. Here is lies yet another example of revisionist history.

‘The New York Times’ Goes Truther on the Temple Mount

The newspaper settles the ‘explosive historical question that cuts to the essence of competing claims to what may be the world’s most contested piece of real estate’

By Liel Leibovitz

Was the White House ever in Washington, D.C.? Can we ever really know for sure? Not unless we dig under the existing structure and find indisputable archaeological evidence of the original structure, which British general Robert Ross is said—by some sources—to have torched in August, 1814.

If you find everything about the previous paragraph patently ridiculous, you are clearly not a reporter or an editor for The New York Times. This morning, the paper of record published a piece about Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, questioning whether or not it was the site of, you know, the Jewish Temple. “Historical Certainty,” the article’s headline reads, “Proves Elusive at Jerusalem’s Holiest Place.” Capping the piece is a quote from Jane Cahill, who the paper notes is not only an archaeologist but also a practicing lawyer and therefore, presumably, an expert on incontrovertible evidence. Did the ancient Jewish temple stand where the Dome of the Rock now stands? “The answer might be ‘yes,’ if the standard of proof is merely a preponderance of the evidence,” Cahill is quoted as saying, “but ‘no’ if the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.”

It’s hard to begin to dissect the Times’ potent blend of ignorance and malice. There’s reporter Rick Gladstone’s repulsive bad faith in continually moving back and forth in his text between the narrow question he seems to have asked Cahill and other scholars: did the Temples stand precisely on the exact spot on the Temple Mount where Aksa was built, or might they have stood, say 50 feet over? This, in addition to the idea, which Gladstone weaves in and out of the piece, that there is even the slightest credibility to the idea that “Jewish Temples” were, you know, the products of some kind of religious fever-dream that Zionists then appropriated for their own aggressive purposes.

To be fair, Gladstone’s ignorance is all-embracing. If you know anything about religious history—not Jewish, mind you, but Muslim—you know that the Dome of the Rock was built in its current spot by the Umayyad Caliphate in 692 C.E. precisely because it was sacred space and because it was the former spot of the Jewish temple, just like the Kaaba in Mecca became a shrine because of the belief (stated explicitly in chapter 2, verse 127 of the Koran) that it was built by Abraham.

But hey, never mind any of that. Never mind the physical existence of the Western Wall, which the Times mentions in passing in the fourth-to-last paragraph, even though the existence of an enormous external supporting wall directly below the site where the temple is said to have stood should sort of answer the question. Never mind plentiful Roman historical accounts of the structure built by Herod that was widely regarded as one of the wonders of the ancient world. And never mind the fact that among scholars who actually study this stuff, there is no controversy whatsoever about the existence of Jewish Temples on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, anymore than any controversy that exists between Judaism and Islam on this point, or the fact that there is no contradiction between Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Roman or pagan sources. Don’t bother the Times with any of these facts: Just as long as it is possible to make any Jewish claim on Judaism’s holiest site seem like yet another irrational piece of fiction invented by feverish religious Jews, Zionists, and other troublemakers who are very unlike the good and logical and educated and clean Jews who read and write for the Times.

And so, because the paper of record won’t put it clearly, permit me the pleasure: Denying that a Jewish temple stood on the Temple Mount is not a form of historical argument. It is akin to denying that the earth is not flat. Or denying that global warming is real. Or that the evidence of human evolution is widely accepted by scholars. As far as history goes, it’s the equivalent of blowing up statues of the Buddha, or blowing up churches, or denying that the Holocaust ever happened. It’s an form of denialism, which seeks to obliterate evidence and basic standards of evidence in the service of some higher truth, which is rarely anything that the future is ever thankful for. It’s ugly. Paying lip-service to standards of historical proof while wildly mis-characterizing the views of scholars in the service of historical denialism turns the Times‘ basic ignorance here into something much uglier.