Archive for November, 2015

Congress votes for the American SAFE Act, but is it really safe?

November 20, 2015

Americans counting on the GOP to stem the pending flood of Syrian/Iraqi refugees to the US with the House passage of H.R. 4038 can sleep well tonight – wait, not so fast! The latest reactive attempt to blunt President Obama’s wish to shelter Muslim refugees from Syria is the American SAFE Act of 2015 authored by Congressmen Mike McCaul (R-TX) and Richard Hudson (R-NC) and strongly endorsed by new Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI). The SAFE Act essentially broadens President powers by giving Obama unilateral authority to determine the number, location, and benefits the US will offer predominantly Syria Muslim refugees relocated in the US.

Yesterday, by a 289-137 vote, the House approved the Bill to ostensibly strengthen the screening process for Syrian and Iraqi refugees. If the large margin holds it provides a veto-proof majority with 47 Democrats, defying the White House by voting with Republicans.

Despite behind closed-door wrangling, Department of Homeland Secretary, Jeh Johnson, said the SAFE Act only micro manages the vetting process, something DHS could not support. Meanwhile, at the FBI, Director James Comey weighed in and echoed Johnson’s concerns saying it was unreasonable to think he would have to personally sign off on each refugee seeking shelter in the US.

Anti-illegal immigration hawk, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said in a statement, “Ignoring this reality, the American SAFE Act allows the President to continue to bring in as many refugees as he wants from anywhere in the world. With respect to Syria and Iraq, the American SAFE Act requires only that the President direct his Secretary of Homeland Security, Director of National Intelligence, and FBI Director (all his appointees) to sign off on the administration’s screening process – a process that the White House continually asserts is adequate and ‘ensures safety.’ The plain fact is that this bill transfers the prerogative from Congress to President Obama and ensures the President’s refugee resettlement initiative will continue unabated.”

So far 31 governors have filed suit to block the President from relocating refugees in their states. “We’re not going to accept any more refugees from this dangerous zone of Syria into the state of Texas,” Gov. Greg Abbott said on Fox News. While the governors may have good intentions the fact remains that federal law makes it tough for any state to refuse Syrian immigrants.

However, weighing heavily on the minds of governors’ is a report that U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents detained eight Syrians who tried to enter the US from Mexico. DHS issued a statement confirming the incident and said the Syrian families were taken into custody. Breitbart Texas can confirm that a Syrian did attempt to enter the U.S. illegally through Texas in late September. The Syrian was caught using a passport that belonged to someone else and U.S. authorities decided against prosecuting anyone involved due to “circumstances.”

Aside from the obvious security risks, Senator Sessions calculated the cost to US taxpayers for the proposed House measure. “There is only one true check now against the President going it alone: Congressional funding. In his annual budget request, the President asked for more than $1 billion to fund the Refugee Admissions Program. All Congress has to do is make clear that the President’s funding request will not be granted unless he meets certain necessary Congressional requirements – the first of which should be to make clear that Congress, not the President, has the final say on how many refugees are brought into the United States and from where.”

“The House plan does not offset a single penny of increased refugee resettlement costs,” Sessions explained. “As currently structured, the House plan would give the President the money he wants for refugee resettlement and then leave taxpayers on the hook now and in the years to come for the tens of billions of dollars in uncapped welfare, education, and entitlement costs certain to accrue. Thus, in addition to the enormous welfare costs – 91 percent of recent Middle Eastern refugees are on food stamps and 73 percent receive free healthcare – we will also be taking money directly from Americans’ Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds to provide retirement benefits for refugees.”

The Senator referred to a recent analysis of the proposed cost to taxpayers of $6.5 billion to resettle 10,000 refugees in the United States. That number increases exponentially under President Obama’s plan to admit 85,000 refugees this fiscal year. If the refugee program is realized, taxpayers will spend an estimated $55 billion to take care of the resettled Muslim migrants.

Session also suggested that taxpayers would fare much better if the President simply created the so-called safe zones in the Middle East. For “(T)he cost of resettling one refugee in America, we could successfully resettle 12 refugees in the region. Creating safe-zones in Syria and the region is a vastly more effective and compassionate strategy.”

The safe-zones would lighten the FBI caseload. Currently FBI leader Comey confirmed the FBI has 1,000 open Islamic State investigations in all 50 states.

For the moment the Democrat narrative, according to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) (she voted against the Bill) said Americans couldn’t turn away women, children and seniors, leaving out men. This comes with another set of problems, like who’s going to take care of these refugees? The children don’t speak English and will require schooling with Arabic interpreters. The seniors will require substantial medical care from a program already operating in the negative. Why doesn’t the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, China, or Qatar take them?

But data shows women are also adept at the suicide bomber phenomenon. According to the Associated Press, “during Israel’s 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon that ended in 2000, several women belonging to leftist groups blew themselves up targeting Israeli forces.”

Taking offense to President Obama’s besmirching comments in Asia was Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) who said Obama’s mocking assertion that cautioned Republicans over accepting thousands of Syrian refugees is about being “scared of widows and orphans. The president says we are scared of widows and orphans,” chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, said. “With all due respect to him, what I’m really afraid of is a foreign policy that creates more widows and orphans. So maybe where he ought to start is a foreign policy in the Middle East and Syria where people can go back to their homelands, which is their preference. Maybe you ought to defeat that JV team you thought you had contained. That would be the very best thing you could do to help people aspire to a better life,” Gowdy finished.

And recent polling suggests Americans are on Gowdy’s side. Rasmussen Reports, states Americans disagree with President Obama’s Syrian refugees program.

“Sixty percent of likely US voters oppose the settling of Syrian refugees in the state where they live. Just 28 percent favor their state taking in those refugees. Eleven percent are undecided. (view survey click here.)

Backing up the survey is the Clarion Project, a US think tank, highlighted the safety factor for the American people. “A new bipartisan congressional terrorism report found there isn’t a global comprehensive database of foreign jihadists who have gone to Syria to fight. It says the US doesn’t even have a national strategy against terrorist travel and ‘information about foreign fighters is crossing borders less quickly than the extremists themselves.’” NPR also pointed out that there are numerous intelligence concerns and that there is a more general lack of intelligence with the Syrian databases.

This is the same president that overruled American public opinion to stay-out of Syria, but his redline calling for the removal of Assad has caused five years of war, millions of refugees, the rise of ISIS, and the uncontrolled migration to Europe; the same President that supported the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and welcomed the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi with a $3 billion gift (Hillary Clinton personally delivered the check); the same president that overthrew President Ali Abdullah Sala’ah in Yemen sparking another civil war in the region and an opening for ISIS and Iran to vie for control in Yemen.

Plus the Obama administration has refused to cooperate with Russia against ISIS: a spat that dates back to the overthrow of Libya’s dictator Muammar Qadaffi leaving a power vacuum so large that Libya is no longer a functioning nation, but it has become a jihadi playground and another ground zero for terrorism.

Nevertheless there is plenty of blame to distribute. Take for example that Congress has a knack for naming bills that suggest they are looking after Americans. The USA Patriot Act introduced metadata collection and warrantless searches; the USA Freedom Act was advertised as a reining-in of the Patriot Act, but all it did was legalize telephone company cooperation with warrantless searches; and now, the SAFE Act aka, the American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act of 2015. Sessions said the bill intened to hold the president’s feet to the fire of refugee immigration, but in fact transfers all authority and funding to the White House, which, incidentally, just issued a new Twitter #hashtag welcoming Syrian refugees to the US.

Read Part one:

Part three tomorrow- KD



City of Lights explodes – Paris and Europe awaken

November 17, 2015

In a rare exhibition of bi-partisanship, both sides of the political aisle are demanding President Obama cease and desist in his plans to resettle tens of thousands of Syrian refugees in the US. With Europe moving to restore borders, enforce immigration controls, and bar refugees from reaching Europe, 20 US governors informed the President that their states would not accept Syrian refugees.

Many lawmakers as well as Americans are questioning whether the President is even on the same page as his intelligence advisors and public sentiment with regard to the recent spat of ISIS-led attacks on the West.

The latest attack in Paris caused the French to impose martial law and curfews, while Obama negotiates the transfer of thousands of un-vetted refugees to the US. As Army General Mike Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency recently stated, “stop, step-back and reassess.” General Flynn handed the president his resignation because the President refused to read the labor-intensive intelligence reports 16 intelligence agencies compile on a daily basis.

Over the past seven years the president has been criticized by multiple media outlets for missing more than half of his daily intelligence briefings, it seems increasingly clear that he is “going it alone” with his own assessments of the threats to the US homeland and its allies posed by Obama’s so called jayvee ISIS terrorists.

Of course the flip side of doing little to nothing is full-scale war, something Americans don’t have the appetite for either. The usual suspects inside the beltway see an opportunity to re-inflate defense spending and return to the Middle East in force.  But according to Army Colonel (ret) Douglas Macgregor, “If we commit large ground forces to the Middle East with the goal of defeating or destroying ISIL (the Islamic State)” the results will include all of the following:

First, it would provide a temporary, rather than a permanent setback to Sunni Islamism. Sunni Islamist fighters will retreat into Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab countries in the Middle East and North Africa. We forget that without the tacit and active support of Turkish President Erdogan and his supporters in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, ISIL could not exist.

Second, we will yet again ensure the expansion and consolidation of Iranian-Shiite strategic power and influence from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean. Our intervention in Iraq created an Iranian Satellite in Baghdad.  This time we would end up working with the Russians to ensure Iran controls all of Mesopotamia.

Third, like the French, our first action should involve the closing of our borders, not the invasion of the Middle East. Given that our borders are open, immigration (legal and illegal) is uncontrolled and (if) unchecked no change will occur in the conditions inside the United States that foster criminality and terrorism.

In addition Macgregor suggests, “that as long as Sunni Islamist leaders in Turkey, KSA and Qatar provide the support and pathways for recruits that brought ISIL to life in the first place nothing will fundamentally change. Moreover, if we do intervene on the ground, assuming we find anything before it flees into neighboring Arab states and Anatolia, we stand an excellent chance of securing Mesopotamia for Iran and its strategic partner Russia. Since we did accomplish that already in Baghdad, I am unconvinced we should repeat the mistake in the rest of the region.”

Instead, Col Macgregor thinks America should secure its borders, enforce Federal immigration law, and halt immigration (legal and illegal) until US Customs and Immigration Services (USCIS) can find out who is in the United States. “Right now, we just don’t know,” he said.  “We have at least 30 million illegals including large numbers of Muslims and Chinese.  How many are agents that wish to steal intellectual property or pursue cyber terrorism? How many Chinese and Latino girls are in brothels managed by organized crime? What we do know is that we now have Muslim communities inside the US where the population wants to substitute Muslim holidays for Federal Holidays and Sharia law for the Constitution. I strongly suggest we deal with these internal problems first.”

And yet another scenario involves the NATO allies. French President Francois Hollande clearly stated that the attacks on Paris represented an act of war and he could invoke Article 5 of the NATO charter, which means if one ally is attacked they all declare war on the enemy and in this case that enemy is ISIS.

This seems like the prevailing choice remaining on the table because the terror group has managed to hold onto large swaths of land in Syria and Iraq. Plus they have demonstrated their strength by launching several terrorist attacks outside their operational control. The terrorist attacks in Turkey (Oct), the Russian airliner over the Sinai Peninsula (Nov), the Beirut Lebanon twin bombing terror strikes (Nov) and now the Paris terrorist attacks all happened in the last 30 days.

“We are facing an act of war organized by an army of terrorist jihadists that had already organized and planned attacks in the past,” French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said at a press conference. “Five attacks have been thwarted since this summer. But we have always said that there is no such thing as zero risk. We have always said that France could face new terrorist attacks.”

Adding fuel to the terror fire was an arrest last week in Germany. After reviewing the arrest details the German authorities concluded the man was most likely tied to the Paris attacks. “If someone is transporting several Kalashnikovs, hand grenades and explosives, that could be someone from a serious criminal background,” Bavarian interior minister Joachim Herrmann told BR News. “But there is a strong suspicion that this is about terrorist purposes… based on the man’s mobile phone and his GPS system, there are clear indications that he wanted to travel to France,” Herrmann explained.

Perhaps most striking was President Obama’s ambivalence during a Q&A at the G20 Summit in Turkey earlier today. The US president referred to the Paris attack “killers with fantasies of glory and a good grasp of social media,” hardly the words world intelligence communities are using. Unlike Mr. Obama, French leader Hollande said the policy of containment is not working, and a new sense of urgency is afoot especially with the growing Middle East refugee crisis.

Watch Kimberly’s One America News TV segment here.

Watch Kimberly’s San Diego 6 News TV segment here.

Check back tomorrow for part two-KD

The Islamic refugee crisis threatens Germanic unity

November 10, 2015

In the late 17th Century, the Ottoman Empire was defeated in its military siege of Vienna and for the next 200 years its dream of claiming the West was pushed back to Istanbul, Turkey. Now, almost 100 years from its collapse following World War I, the Muslims have successfully invaded Europe with millions of refugees from the Iraq and Syrian wars. The humanitarian crisis accomplished in a few short months what their forefathers could not accomplish in half a millennium.

The flood of refugees into Germany continues to grow… about 7-10,000 arrive each day and after decades of relative harmony in Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel must walk a political and humanitarian tightrope for the 1.5 million refugees expected this year and the 3 million plus by 2017.

German Air Force Colonel (ret) Paul Werner Schoendorf spoke with San Diego 6 News about the growing crisis and the realities that come with accepting 1.5 million Middle Eastern refugees in such a short period of time. “This is a very difficult question. They have another cultural background. They don’t accept German law they think they have their own law, Sharia law,” he said. “Refugees are coming in and they need housing and I think this will be a source of social conflict in the future.”

The colonel also explained that Germany’s constitution that was written in part by America provides for unlimited asylum. “It’s well known that our constitution has the right for unlimited number of refugees. When they (the refugees) first came they saw welcome signs. They saw Chancellor Merkel with welcome signs and they thought it must be ok to go to Germany.”

Unfortunately those welcome signs encouraged millions of displaced refugees to flee the Middle East wars and seek refuge in Germany and other EU nations. But away from the welcome signs the German police admit there has been a steady increase in crimes like robbery and rape of women who do not dress modestly.

“The crime rates are going up, they have no money. They see the fortunate and the wealth all around and they have the illusion that they only have to get a job and they will have homes and school, but it doesn’t work like that… they are dependent on social programs and finance which isn’t much. So there are robberies and rapes and the crime rate is going up, Colonel Schoendorf claims”

Women and children report they have been raped or subjected to sexual assault. As a result, many women sleep in their street clothes. Women regularly report that they do not use the toilet at night because of the danger of rape and robbery on the way to the sanitary facilities, according to the Gatestone Institute. “Even during daylight, passing through the camp is a frightful situation for many women. Many women — in addition to fleeing wars or civil wars — are also on the run for gender-related reasons, including the threat of forced marriage or genital mutilation. These women who face special risks, especially when they are on the run alone or with their children. Even if they are accompanied by male relatives or acquaintances [sic], this does not always ensure protection against violence because it can also lead to specific dependencies and sexual exploitation.”

The humanitarian aid group found a number of pressing issues inside the refugee camps. “These facilities must be equipped so that men do not have access to the premises of the women, with the exception of emergency workers and security personnel. In addition bedrooms, lounges, kitchens and sanitary facilities must be interconnected so that they form a self-contained unit — and thus can only be reached via lockable and monitored access to the house or the apartment,” a German relief organization confirmed.

According to the Gatestone Institute, in August, a coalition of four social work organizations and women’s rights groups sent a letter to the political party leaders in the regional parliament in Hesse, warning the German government about the deteriorating situation for women and children at the refugee shelters. The letter said in part:

“The ever-increasing influx of refugees has complicated the situation for women and girls at the receiving center in Giessen (HEAE) and its subsidiaries. The practice of providing accommodations in large tents, the lack of gender-separate sanitary facilities, premises that cannot be locked, the lack of safe havens for women and girls — to name just a few spatial factors — increases the vulnerability of women and children within the HEAE. This situation plays into the hands of those men who assign women a subordinate role and treat women traveling alone as ‘wild game.’ The consequences are numerous rapes and sexual assaults. We are also receiving an increasing number of reports of forced prostitution. It must be stressed: these are not isolated cases.” (Author emphasis)

The rapidly increasing number of Muslim refugees has led to daily demonstrations by all political parties that lead all German nightly newscasts, something Schoendorf said he does not see on American news broadcasts. Colonel Schoendorf, who was the benefactor of US aid after WWII, said the American’s fed him and taught him English as a child. He explained that the extraordinary kindnesses by the soldiers gave him great respect for America, but he admitted the continued wars in the Middle East has cost US respect from many Germans. “Our culture will be forever changed. These refugees will settle and they will never go home. They don’t speak German, nor do they have any skills, only 8 percent are literate. The result will be parallel cultures in the future.”

Germany is already bearing witness to a large Muslim population. Much like America, if Germans talk about the Islamization problem publicly, they start with “I’m not a Nazi.” Many liberal German groups label these individuals’ racists or xenophobes, a remnant from the 1920s, when Adolf Hitler erected his empire based on anti-Semitism and anti-Slavinism.

According to Pravda, German writers elucidate “that in many schools of big cities, Muslim students are already the majority, whereas the number of mosques grows rapidly (in the beginning of the century, there were 50 of them, and now there are 2,660 chapels and 143 classic mosques with minarets). In menus of German kindergartens and school cafeterias, halal meat has become commonplace, and pork dishes are hard to find. Muslim girls are exempt from physical education; they do not participate in school activities, because devout Muslims do not want to take up Western values. Catholic and Protestant families have halved baptism ceremonies, because parents want to leave the choice of religion to children.”

Germany has even begun the process of renaming pubic religious events. An example, Christmas fairs are now “winter markets” or “festivals of lights.” Pravda intimates that German bosses congratulate their Muslim employees on the completion of the Muslim month of Ramadan and send them on a paid holiday leave.

Another problem everyday German’s face is a complete transformation once the government informs villages to prepare for refugees. It’s not uncommon, this year, for a town with a population of 987 to take more than 1,400 refugees. “We have no room for them, they stay in school auditoriums or empty buildings, sometimes they even force out Germans on government aid,” Schoendorf explained.

So what exactly is the world doing to halt the mass migration? Last week the EU convened an external action meeting in Vienna, the working group included: China, Egypt, the EU, France, Germany, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey the UAE, the United Kingdom, the UN and US delegations.

The group reached the following conclusions: Keep Syria unified by leaving the State institutions in tact, protect the lives of all Syrian ethnic populations, increase humanitarian relief, end the war, by defeating ISIS, al-Qaeda and Da’esh, and ask President Bashar al-Assad to hold inclusive elections in Syria.

Schoendorf says it’s simpler to just end Western involvement in the Middle East wars.

The question remains, will the world be there to bail out Europe? Most experts admit that a decade-and-a half of war means there will be no Austro-Hungarian Emperor to save the Christians of Europe from the onslaught of Islam. Does the European Code of liberté, égalité, fraternité adopted from the French Revolution and upon which all-European law rests spell the beginning of the end for Europe. Will there be a stirring speech reminiscent of Churchill invoking resistance to  “… fight on the beaches, fight on the landing grounds, fight in the fields and in the streets, and fight in the hills; to never surrender …” or will the Europeans go meekly to their submission so as not to offend their invaders’ religious beliefs.

Watch the entire 10-minute interview here.

Update: US military ignored Afghanistan child rape since 2003

November 2, 2015