Muslim Refugees, Yes – Christian Refugees, No

Pamela Geller
Atlas Shrugs



Christians are in imminent danger across the world, and yet they are being refused refugee status, while Muslim refugee immigration goes on unimpeded.

U.S. policy regarding refugee resettlement would shock most Americans if they only knew. The United Nations picks who gets to come to the U.S. as a refugee. The mandate of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is to determine which of the world's huddled masses comes to the U.S. as humanitarian refugees. And predictably, this U.N. body is favoring Muslims. Christians from Muslim lands are being refused refugee status.

This is occurring despite the fact that in their home countries, under the Shariah, Christians face persecution and many times certain death for their religious beliefs. At the same time, whole Muslim communities are entering the U.S. by the tens of thousands per month, despite the fact that in their home countries they face no religious persecution.

This is no accident. We know that the U.N. is driven largely by its largest bloc of countries, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. The OIC is one of the largest intergovernmental organizations in the world. It is a religious and political organization with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization dedicated in its own words to "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within."

It is horrifying but true that Afghan Christians are being refused refugee status by the U.N. and many Western nations, including Great Britain. The U.N. claims that Afghan Christians do not meet the criteria for refugee status that is stipulated in Statute 6B of the UNHCR, which requires refugees to have "a well founded fear of persecution by reason of his race, religion, nationality or political opinion."

Is this why we expended incalculable blood and treasure in Afghanistan? So that Christians would face persecution and slaughter? What was the objective? Shariah?

UNHCR trends for 2006 indicated that worldwide there were more than 32.9 million "persons of concern," including around 11 million who were designated as "refugees." Most of these came from Somalia, Darfur in the Sudan, Ethiopia, Iraq, Pakistan and Myanmar – all Muslim countries except Myanmar and Ethiopia (which has a huge Muslim population). That means that many refugees from these countries are non-Muslims seeking to escape religious persecution. But they are just the ones being denied.

The U.S. ranks third among the world's nations in the number of refugees we host. Since 1976, millions of new citizens have entered the United States as legal humanitarian refugees, according to reports from the U.S. State Department. The large groups of Somalis that have recently come to the U.S. are certified as "humanitarian refugees" under our State Department rules. Whole Muslim communities are imported into the United States. When they get here, they are supported by social services provided by the Office of Refugee Resettlement of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The cities that receive these huge numbers of refugees are determined by Refugee Councils.

Humanitarian refugees have literally won the proverbial lottery. Typically, they receive green cards as resident aliens within a year of arrival in the U.S. and are eligible to become full U.S. citizens within five years, unless they violate our immigration laws, commit a felony or are deported. In the process, they are provided with cash stipends and social services assistance from federal, state, NGOs and voluntary agency contractors.

But this lottery is not open to non-Muslim refugees. Back in October 2008, Muslim U.N. employees were "discouraging" applications for resettlement from the desperate Christian Iraqis. The Christian Iraqi population has since been decimated: Over half of the pre-war Christian population of Iraq has now fled the country.

By buying into the argument that Islam is a religion of peace and ignoring the penalties for apostasy, we are sentencing thousands of Christians to martyrdom and forcing others to live in the shadows in dire poverty.

We need to demand that our government provide protection and asylum for Christian refugees and converts from Islam to Christianity who are threatened under Islam's death penalty for apostates.


Related Links

---

Time to limit Muslim immigration - WND (Joseph Farah)
Will There Be a Place for Christians in Muslim-Majority 'Arab Spring' Countries? - Crosswalk (Carl Moeller)
Shariah law is exploiting the U.S. constitution - Coastal Courier
U.S. Denies Entry To “Thousands” Of “Persecuted” Iraqi Christians (UPDATE) - BosNewsLife
Syria's Christians Side with Assad Out of Fear - Spiegel Online

---

American-Chinese Chess Match in Asian Affairs

By Dr. Chuck Missler
Koinonia House



On Saturday, a cross-border NATO air strike on Afghani targets left 24 Pakistani soldiers dead and another 13 injured. On Monday, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi told Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, "China will consistently support Pakistan's efforts in safeguarding national independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity."

Coming as it does on the heels of an event that threatens to further strain already tenuous U.S.-Pakistani relations, Jiechi might have said, "Bishop to E5, check."

The mistake immediately cost the U.S. vital Pakistani support in the "war on terror." In response to Saturday's air strike, Pakistan has decided to close its borders to NATO supply routes into Afghanistan, overland routes that account for almost half of the logistical supply lines for NATO troops there. There is as yet no word when these routes might be reopened, but there is little doubt that the war effort in Afghanistan will be hampered. The U.S. and NATO will also have to do some diplomatic "backpedaling" to save face and keep Pakistan from not only severing NATO ties, but mandating retaliatory strikes of its own.

In the meantime, China is ready to offer Pakistan its support. A Foreign Ministry spokesman stated that China was deeply shocked by these events and expressed strong concern for the victims and profound condolences to Pakistan. This supportive stance on China's part is indicative of savvy strategic planning.

This is not to say that Chinese foreign policy makers do not wholeheartedly feel for the plight of Pakistan, or that Chinese support of Pakistani sovereignty is simply a political maneuver in severing U.S. influence in Asia. There is little doubt, however, that jockeying for political and diplomatic influence in Asia has become a sort of "chess match" between the U.S. and China – and China has just advanced to a strategic place on the board.

This is a serious cause for concern for the U.S. because it undermines American influence in other Asian countries as well – something that the U.S. has spent a great deal of time and diplomatic effort to establish of late.

For instance, in addition to an earlier tour of Southeast Asia this summer, President Obama recently finished a 10-day tour that included economic summit meetings with India, Indonesia, Japan, and South Korea. Upon his return from these meetings, the President was forced to announce that he had failed to finalize a long awaited bilateral trade deal with South Korea.

The problem is that in an economic "sputtering" of Asian trade markets, countries like Japan and South Korea count on China to "offset slowing demand from the United States and Europe," as The New York Times reports. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, "Obama noted his concerns about China's rise and hinted that the two governments [US and Japan] would develop an agenda over the coming months to strengthen …cooperation."

The U.S. is not only in danger of losing economic ground in its dealings with Asia. Having recently finished diplomatic meetings in Burma, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was at the forefront of attempts to gain diplomatic influence with the Burmese government in its reform attempts. Burma has been working toward democratic reforms, and the U.S. is ready to support those efforts. However, China has also made advances in Burma. While not supporting Burma's reforms ideologically (China is still a Communist nation after all) China has made overtures toward what it has called "military cooperation." This could include a mutual defense pact and/or military materials trade. China's economic strength is in its export trade based on its vast industrial complex. It relies on trade with neighboring countries for its raw materials – countries like Burma.

The United States is on tenuous ground with Pakistan, and the rest of Asia is watching to see how the situation will be handled. Meanwhile, China is consolidating a strategic position of influence in that region. Before the United States loses any more influence in Asia, it may have to swallow pride and apologize, making amends to Pakistan; sacrifice a pawn to counter China's bishop.


Related Links

---

Clinton says Pakistan and US must learn lessons from NATO assault, keep working together - Washington Post
China Says No Worries over Historic US Visit to Burma - Voice of America
Pakistan Rejects Afghan Plea to Attend Conference After Deadly Airstrike - FOX News
U.S. Declares Cold War with China - BPB (Bob Maginnis)
Pakistan army says NATO attack was blatant aggression - Reuters

---

A Page from the Truman Handbook

By Jack Kinsella
The Omega Letter



I think it is fair to say that the average Obama supporter would find great similarities between Obama and FDR or Truman. Indeed, Obama has made that comparison himself.

CNN ran a story depicting Obama as Truman when it was propagandizing in favor of Obama's 'jobs bill' recalling Harry Truman's use of a 'do-nothing Congress' to win his first elected term in 1948.

(Vice President Truman first became president on the death of FDR in 1945).

When President Harry Truman left office in 1953, he did so as one of the most unpopular chief executives in American history. At 22%, Truman's approval rating in February 1952 was even lower than Nixon's approval rating on the month that Nixon was forced to resign.

Although Truman was eligible to run for re-election in 1952, given his unpopularity at the polls, he decided against running again for the good of his party in order to give the Democrats an opportunity to run somebody who at least had a chance at holding the White House.

Although decades of Democrat revisionist history had largely rehabilitated Harry Truman, after a review of information available to Truman on the presence of Soviet spies working in US government, Democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynahan concluded that Truman "was almost willfully obtuse" concerning the danger.

Senator Moynahan was legendarily partisan - had he not been, he would undoubtedly have concluded that Truman deliberately looked the other way. Senator Joe McCarthy [R Wi] is sort of Truman's opposite number.

McCarthy's legacy is the exact opposite of his accomplishments. In her book, Treason, Ann Coulter shocks readers with the statement:

"Everything you think you know about McCarthy is a hegemonic lie. Liberals denounced McCarthy because they were afraid of getting caught, so they fought back like animals to hide their own collaboration with a regime as evil as the Nazis."

The fact is that the McCarthy hearings unmasked a number of very high ranking US officials, including Alger Hiss. Alger Hiss was accused of working for Moscow while working as a top official at the State Department, and later at the UN.

Hiss, like Truman, had seen his reputation largely rehabilitated by Democrats who much preferred to refer to Hiss as a "victim of McCarthyism" until the Venona Project was released by the CIA in 1995.

Venona was a US intelligence operation that decrypted thousands of WWII-era telegrams sent to the Soviet Union by its US operatives. Venona confirmed that Hiss had been an agent of the Soviet GRU.

And instead of only passing non-military State Department secrets to the Soviets, Venona revealed Hiss to have been a military spy. Since 1995, liberal academics have been forced to shift tactics, attacking the Venona files instead.

In addition to Hiss, (who was FDR's WWII advisor and first Secretary General of the UN) McCarthy's hearings uncovered as Soviet spies; Harry Dexter White, assistant secretary of the Treasury and Truman’s appointee as director of the International Monetary Fund; and Lauchlin Currie, administrative assistant to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman and hundreds of others.

At least three sitting members of Congress (Democrats all!) were also revealed by Venona to have been working for the Soviets during the war.

Although McCarthy is charged with a failure to distinguish between liberals and Communists, it was generally liberals who couldn’t recognize the differences.

It was Franklin Roosevelt that brought Alger Hiss to Yalta and Harry Truman who promoted Harry Dexter White to head the International Monetary Fund.

Both Truman and Roosevelt entrusted these Soviet agents with top positions long after they had been told that Hiss and White were involved in espionage.

Venona revealed that influential liberals in the media like I.F. Stone of The Nation, Michael Straight, editor of The New Republic, and Pulitzer Prize Winner Walter Duranty of The New York Times were actually agents of the Soviet Union.

Prominent unions like the Congress of Industrial Organizations and the Screen Actors Guild really were dominated by Communists. Even major industrialists like Armand Hammer did their part by laundering Soviet money to domestic U.S. Communists.

Although liberals to this day claim that McCarthy never uncovered a single Communist, history (and Venona) say that McCarthy was right about Owen Lattimore, Edward Posniak, Mary Jane Keeney, Gustavo Duran, and John Carter Vincent, and dozens, if not hundreds of others.

The truth about Joe McCarthy can be gleaned, despite the historical revisionism, by taking a closer look at McCarthy's detractors, most of whom are liberals.

Those on the Right that joined in the McCarthy bashing did so based on misinformation about McCarthy and without the benefit of the Venona Project findings.

Neither Roosevelt nor Truman knew about Venona.

General Omar Bradley made the decision to deny President Truman information about Venona because he didn't trust Truman with classified information - probably because Bradley knew what was in Venona's files.

McCarthy's detractors challenged him to name names; when he did so, they accused him of slandering those he named without proof.

McCarthy was parodied in the movie "The Manchurian Candidate" as Senator Johnny Iselin, whose claim to fame amounted to picking figures at random in speeches, such as "There are exactly 349 Soviet spies working in the US State Department", etc.

(Actually, Venona confirmed that there were 349 American government officials working for the Soviets during the McCarthy investigative era. McCarthy was right.)

To my mind, the most compelling evidence favoring McCarthy is the way that liberals close ranks immediately whenever McCarthy's name comes up. And the fact that all of those "victims of McCarthyism" were reliably progressive liberals.

Just like their modern-day apologists and defenders.

Had Harry Truman sought another term in 1952, it is probable that the Soviet agents within his administration would have kept their jobs through 1956.

One can only imagine how things may have turned out if it had been Truman facing off against Khrushchev instead of Eisenhower, but it probably would not have ended in a US victory in the Cold War.

Fortunately for America, Truman decided that his poll numbers made re-election impossible and he decided not to run again. Thanks to that decision, the liberal media was able to rehabilitate Harry.

Thanks to the work of liberal revisionist history, Harry Truman is consistently numbered among America's near-great presidents, despite what amounts to a pretty sad record.

Truman's great accomplishments, like desegregating the military, were pragmatic, rather than ideological decisions. (Truman famously opposed the 1960's civil rights movement, calling it "silly" and saying it "won't accomplish a darned thing.")

If one were to take a poll in 1953 of America's worst presidents, Harry Truman would have won it, hands down. Indeed, in 1952, that is about the only contest Truman could have won - its harder to revise the present than it is the past.

What made Harry Truman one of America's near-great presidents was his decision not to seek re-election in 1952. In 1999 C-Span ranked him America's fifth best president.

In 1968, embattled President Lyndon Johnson refused to run for re-election. Johnson's "War on Poverty", was the blueprint for his "Great Society" - a Marxist utopian vision that resulted in, for the first time, the possibility that an American who was not elderly or disabled could make a living off the US government.

We can thank President Johnson for Medicare/Medicaid, PBS, student loans, Head Start, food stamps, gun control, the Watts riots and the Vietnam War. US involvement in Vietnam escalated from 16,000 advisors in 1964 to 550,000 combat troops by 1967.

But since he decided not to run for a second term in 1968, Johnson's apologists were able to spin his administration to the point that in 1999, C-Span ranked the Johnson administration the tenth best in US history.

Jimmy Carter refused to reconsider running for a second term and was faced with a direct challenge for the Democratic nomination by Teddy Kennedy. Kennedy lost the nomination, but the fight so damaged Carter that it handed the White House to Ronald Reagan.

The liberals never forgave Carter, (who ranks as 27th best, or 15th worst, depending on your perspective).

A year ago in the Washington Post, two Democrat pollsters, Doug Schone and Pat Caddell, co-authored an op-ed in which they implored President Obama not to seek re-election for the good of both the party and the country.

"This is a critical moment for the country. From the faltering economy to the burdensome deficit to our foreign policy struggles, America is suffering a widespread sense of crisis and anxiety about the future. Under these circumstances, Obama has the opportunity to seize the high ground and the imagination of the nation once again, and to galvanize the public for the hard decisions that must be made. The only way he can do so, though, is by putting national interests ahead of personal or political ones."

The best way he can do that, according to these two Democrats, is by following in the footsteps of two of America's ten best presidents, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson.

"To that end, we believe Obama should announce immediately that he will not be a candidate for reelection in 2012."

According to the op-ed, the two Democrats believe that Obama should step down in favor of . . . no surprise here . . . Hillary Clinton.

Obama himself once said to Diane Sawyer:

"I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president."

He now has the chance to deliver on that idea."

According to the pollsters, the problem for Obama is that he is a lousy president. Instead of governing the nation, he spent his first three years in office campaigning for his next four. If he would stop campaigning and start governing . . .

"Obama could better make hard decisions about Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan based on what is reasonable and responsible for the United States, without the political constraints of a looming election. He would be able to deal with a Democratic constituency that wants to get out of Afghanistan immediately and a Republican constituency that is committed to the war, forging a course that responds not to the electoral calendar but to the facts on the ground."

That was a year ago. This morning, they've published a second op-ed making the same argument, only this time more passionately.

Even Chris Matthews' thrill up his leg has been replaced by a burning in his esophagus. First Lady Michelle Obama was resoundingly booed by fans at Sunday's NASCAR race.

And so the secret is out. As a president, Obama makes a great community organizer. So here are the choices before him.

He can be "Trumanized" if he decides against a second term.

Or, like Jimmy Carter, he can spend the next thirty years trying to explain why he wasn't the worst president in two hundred years.

Or he could try the third option, similar to the way he and his party have handled America's budget crisis.

We haven't had a budget since Obama took office. Obama submits one he knows won't pass, then blames the Republicans for its defeat (Last vote to reject an Obama budget was 97-0).

Obama's foreign policy seems deliberately aimed at provoking an existential crisis. In such a crisis, elections could be suspended indefinitely, an idea already being floated by the Dems.

Of all the options available, it seems certain that the one least likely to materialize has Obama stepping down for the good of the country.

This is one time America really could use another Harry Truman.


Related Links

---

Obama's Job Approval Drops Below Carter's - FOX News
Secrets of Soros, Obama, Occupy and MSM - WND (Chuck Norris)
Gallup: Obama's approval too low for re-election - CNS News (Terence P. Jeffrey)
Obama campaign launches first re-election ads - USA Today
Does the Bible support Communism? - GotQuestions.org

---

Connecting the Dots on the National Defense Authorization Act

By Douglas J. Hagmann
Northeast Intelligence Network



It was a year ago last week that I warned that the Department of Homeland Security was making a list of U.S. citizens who protested and urged others to protest TSA policies. I disclosed the existence of a written directive issued through DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and TSA head John Pistole, both acting on behalf of the Obama administration, instructed TSA officials to collect the names and other relevant information of anyone who “interfered” with enhanced TSA screening procedures by speaking out against them. They were to be classified as “domestic extremists” in this data mining operation. For my assertions here and on various national news programs, I was attacked by media lapdogs, “investigative reporters,” and members of both sides of the political spectrum.

Later, my credibility was called into question when an enterprising reporter filed a FOI request and was informed that “no such document exits.” Case closed. What a surprise.

Today, some of the same people who doubted the veracity of the report are suddenly uncomfortable, concerned, or even a bit outraged that the anti-terror apparatus is now turning inward and being set up to be used against U.S. citizens. Again, what a surprise.

I am referring to Senate Bill 1867, titled the National Defense Authorization Act (for fiscal year 2012) secretly drafted (in committee) by Senators Carl Levin and John McCain. The bill made it out of committee, sans hearing, and is pending a full senate vote this week.

While much of the bill deals with the mundane, sections 1031 and 1032 are raising the concerns of many, including some unlikely allies. In plain speak, those sections of the bill broadly classifies certain U.S. citizens as terrorists, and allow for military intervention against such citizens on U.S. soil.

The language of the bill is cumbersome and difficult to assess, thus creating some plausible deniability for those who support this piece of draconian legislation. Representative Justin Amash (D-MI) apparently agrees. According to Rep. Amash, the language of the bill is “carefully crafted to mislead the public.”

To those who assert that the ambiguity of the bill’s language has been fixed and addressed, he counters that “it [still] does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary.”

I contacted my intelligence source who possessed the written directive that was the subject of contentious ridicule for insight into the current activities of our national security apparatus and assessment of the proposed NDAA. According to this source, the DHS is broadening their attention to include anyone who is or will be engaged or encouraging domestic unrest, whatever the reason. The net is being cast over such groups as the Tea Party, which has been under actual and electronic surveillance by the FBI and other intelligence agencies, as well as the various “occupy” groups.

Additionally and perhaps most ominous is that according to my source, “active measures are now being taken in the event of bank holidays, closures and associated unrest.”

Connect the dots. Look at who this bill will ultimately benefit and protect, and who it is intended to stifle. Follow the money, or what’s left of it, before it disappears.


Related Links

---

Secret Bill To Be Voted On Today Would Allow The Military To Sweep Up US Citizens At Home Or Abroad - The Business Insider
Senate Bill to OK Indefinite Detention of U.S. Citizens Without Charge, Trial - New American (Jack Kenny)
Treason From Within: The Road towards a Police State in America - Global Research
Don't Worry: The President Will Have Complete Discretion... - Reason Online
Sens. Paul, McCain clash over terrorist detainee amendment - The Hill

---

Eyewitnesses Claim ‘Unusual’ Movement of Israeli Missiles

By Aaron Klein
Klein Online



Multiple eyewitnesses reported seeing Israeli military trucks in recent days transport and station large missiles at the periphery of Jerusalem and in locations inside the West Bank.

The descriptions of the projectiles are consistent with the Jewish state’s mid-to-long range Jericho ballistic missiles.

The missile movement, if confirmed, would be considered unusual.

One of the eyewitnesses was a member of the Palestinian Authority security services. He claimed to me that a large missile was stationed five days ago near Neve Yaacov, a Jewish neighborhood in northeast Jerusalem. That neighborhood is adjacent to several Palestinian-inhabited towns.

Four other eyewitnesses, Israeli and Palestinian, reported seeing similar sights during the past week – large missiles being transported by the Israeli military at the periphery of Jerusalem and in the West Bank.

Reached for comment, the spokesperson’s unit of the Israel Defense Forces could not confirm the information, referring me instead to Israel’s national police.

Mickey Rosenfeld, the national police spokesperson here, told me today he has no information on any such movements.

Apparently, I’m not the only reporter to receive such reports.

Rosenfeld said another foreign correspondent contacted him earlier today for comment on the same matter.

The PA security member, speaking on condition of anonymity, speculated the missiles were related to a possible Israeli offensive against Iran. He commented that such missiles were offensive in nature, and usually not meant to serve as defensive posture.

While the possibility of an attack on Iran cannot be immediately discounted, there are several other scenarios that make some sense:

1) It’s possible such missile transport is part of an internal military drill or to test various locations for the future deployment of projectiles.

The drill, however, would not include test firings. Such testing is almost always conducted at a military base and usually involves one missile fired from one location. Any such test is difficult to keep under wraps.

Earlier this month, the IDF did test fire a long-range ballistic missile, believed to be a Jericho III, at the country’s Palmachim Air & Space test center. Israel’s Ministry of Defense confirmed the test was successful, indicating the purpose of the launch was the testing of a new advanced propulsion system.

Jericho III’s are believed to be guided by radar and reportedly give Israel nuclear strike capabilities within the entire Middle East, Africa, Europe, Asia and almost all parts of North America, as well as within large parts of South America and North Oceania.

2) Any missile placement could be related to the unstable situation in Syria, including fears of a future NATO military campaign there that could have ramifications for Israel, such as firing of missiles into the Jewish state by Syria or Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Just yesterday, in an unprecedented move against a fellow Arab nation, the Arab League approved economic sanctions on Syria to pressure Damascus to end its suppression of an 8-month-old uprising against Assad’s regime.

Arab League diplomats, speaking last week to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity, said that if Syria does not adhere to its demands for immediate reform, the organization will work to unify Syrian opposition groups into a coalition similar to that of Libya’s National Transitional Council.

A next step, the diplomats said, would be to recognize the opposition as the sole representative of the Syrian people in a move that would symbolically isolate the Assad’s regime.

The moves mimic the diplomatic initiatives taken to isolate Muammar Gadhafi’s regime before the NATO campaign in Libya.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad warned in an interview with a U.K. newspaper earlier this month that foreign intervention in Syria would cause an “earthquake” across the region and create another Afghanistan, while directly threatening the Jewish state.

Assad reportedly made similar comments in a meeting in early October with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmad Davutoglu.

He was quoted stating,

“If a crazy measure is taken against Damascus, I will need not more than six hours to transfer hundreds of rockets and missiles to the Golan Heights to fire them at Tel Aviv.”

Assad also reportedly warned that “all these events will happen in three hours, but in the second three hours, Iran will attack the U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf and the U.S. and European interests will be targeted simultaneously.”


Related Links

---

Syria troops have killed more than 250 children, UN report finds - The Guardian
IDF Southern Command establishes new regional brigade - defpro
NATO-Gulf military officers in Turkey prepare for intervention in Syria - DEBKAfile
IDF to hold exercises simulating WMD attacks - Jerusalem Post
Syria Says Sanctions Signal ‘Economic War’ as UN Decries Abuses - BusinessWeek

---