While World Leaders Honored Paris With Moment Of Silence, Obama Did Something Stunning

As world leaders in Turkey observed a moment of silence on Sunday for the victims of Friday’s Paris attack, they did so without one person present, a world leader referred to by The Daily Mail as Barack-come-lately.

President Obama arrived late to the meeting, which started its moment of silence without him. Obama arrived after the moment of silence had begun, and then took his place at the G-20 conference table.

While many world leaders were focused on the wounded nation of France, the bleeding city of Paris, and a global manhunt for the terrorists responsible for Friday’s attacks, Obama’s focus was elsewhere.

“There is a strong link between economy and security,” Obama intoned, implying the attacks proved his point.

Obama also touched upon the Syrian refugee crisis. He said “society has not passed this exam with good grades.”

Obama’s administration is not backing off its plan to bring thousands of Syrian refugees to the United States.

“We have very robust vetting procedures for those refugees. It involves our intelligence community, our national counterterrorism center, extensive interviews, vetting them against all the available information,” Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said Sunday.

Rhodes also tried to explain away Obama’s comments that the United States had “contained” ISIS.

Obama last week countered facts that ISIS was getting stronger by saying, “What is true is that from the start our goal has been first to contain, and we have contained them. You don’t see this systematic march by (ISIS) across the terrain.”

“The president was responding very specifically to the geographic expansion of (ISIS) in Iraq and Syria,” Rhodes said Sunday.

“The fact is we have been able to stop that geographic advance and take back significant amounts of territory,” he said. “At the same time that does not diminish the fact that there is a threat posed by (ISIS) not just in those countries but in their aspirations to project power overseas.”

h/t: Washington Times

Did DOJ ‘Strong Cities’ Put US Under Islamic Law?

On September 30, 2015, at the UN, Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced a new worldwide law enforcement initiative, the Strong Cities Network, to be set up in certain American cities. What this actually is is the UN plan for global police, using the Department of Justice. It’s the overriding of American law by the Obama administration in conjunction with the UN, without Congressional input.

What’s the initiative all about? Officially, it’s to prevent and combat “violent extremism in all of its forms” without linking it “with any particular religion, nationality or ethnic group.” The emphasis is on inclusiveness, collaboration, and non-discrimination. Although it doesn’t mention any specific religion, using the language of Obama-speak, its goal of “building social cohesion and resilience to violent extremism” actually means peacekeeping between Muslims and non-Muslims, “mostly by making sure that non-Muslims don’t complain too loudly about, much less work against, rapidly expanding Muslim populations and the Islamization of their communities,” according to Pamela Geller.

This is a reasonable interpretation. Instead of “building social cohesion,” the flood of Islamic refugees and immigrants are destroying social unity in Western nations; yet they’re being welcomed by governments despite public outcry. And the FBI recently sent out a bulletin to law enforcement warning of attacks against Muslims by “militia extremists,” even though there’s no proof of any imminent attacks. In DHS reports, we’ve also seen the Obama administration target conservatives such as Christians, gun-owners and pro-lifers as dangerous.

Who’s set to head this “worldwide initiative”? A Jordanian Muslim, Prince Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, the UN’s new High Commissioner of Human Rights, of course. The UN is a sharia-compliant organization, and there’s been a great deal of movement toward silencing critics of Islam in nations around the world, fueling speculation that this will be used to enforce Islamic blasphemy laws. According to Foreign Policy, “in 2013, the ministers of justice of the League of Arab States approved an extremely wide-ranging draft blasphemy law that not only aims at criminalizing allegedly blasphemous utterances…but also envisaged extraterritorial jurisdiction, meaning that someone deemed to have blasphemed in the United States or Europe would be liable to prosecution in Arab League member states.”

The SCN’s stated aim is to “connect cities and other local authorities on an international basis, to enhance local level approaches” by “facilitating information sharing” and creating “new and innovative local practices.” The practical effect is to strip authority from local law enforcement as it destroys American sovereignty. Initially, 23 cities will be involved. Constitutional lawyer John Whitehead states that this is an initial step toward a global police force, which is being imposed on us whether we want it or not.

This is the continual non-stop merging of information on every level, heading toward what John McTernan refers to as the 666 Surveillance System. He also feels that as America rejects God and Obama turns from Israel, God is sending Islam as a judgment on the nation.

For more information, go to facebook.com/JohnMcTernansInsights

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

Things Are Getting Scary: Global Police, Precrime And The War On Domestic ‘Extremists’

If you answered yes to any of the above questions, you may be an anti-government extremist (a.k.a. domestic terrorist) in the eyes of the police.

As such, you are now viewed as a greater threat to America than ISIS or al Qaeda.

Let that sink in a moment.

If you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you have just been promoted to the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.

I assure you I’m not making this stuff up.

Police agencies now believe the “main terrorist threat in the United States is not from violent Muslim extremists, but from right-wing extremists.”

A New York Times editorial backs up these findings:

Law enforcement agencies around the country are training their officers to recognize signs of anti-government extremism and to exercise caution during routine traffic stops, criminal investigations and other interactions with potential extremists. “The threat is real,” says the handout from one training program sponsored by the Department of Justice. Since 2000, the handout notes, 25 law enforcement officers have been killed by right-wing extremists, who share a “fear that government will confiscate firearms” and a “belief in the approaching collapse of government and the economy.”

So what is the government doing about these so-called terrorists?

The government is going to war.


Only this time, it has declared war against so-called American “extremists.”

After decades spent waging costly, deadly and ineffective military campaigns overseas in pursuit of elusive ISIS and al Qaeda operatives and terror cells (including the recent “accidental” bombing of a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan that left 22 patients and medical staff dead), the Obama administration has announced a campaign to focus its terror-fighting forces inwards.

Under the guise of fighting violent extremism “in all of its forms and manifestations” in cities and communities across the world, the Obama administration has agreed to partner with the United Nations to take part in its Strong Cities Network program. Funded by the State Department through 2016, after which “charities are expected to take over funding,” the cities included in the global network include New York City, Atlanta, Denver, Minneapolis, Paris, London, Montreal, Beirut and Oslo.

Working with the UN, the federal government will train local police agencies across America in how to identify, fight and prevent extremism, as well as address intolerance within their communities, using all of the resources at their disposal.

What this program is really all about, however, is community policing on a global scale.

Community policing, which relies on a “broken windows” theory of policing, calls for police to engage with the community in order to prevent local crime by interrupting or preventing minor offenses before they could snowball into bigger, more serious and perhaps violent crime. The problem with the broken windows approach is that it has led to zero tolerance policing and stop-and-frisk practices among other harsh police tactics.

When applied to the Strong Cities Network program, the objective is ostensibly to prevent violent extremism by targeting its source: racism, bigotry, hatred, intolerance, etc.

In other words, police—acting ostensibly as extensions of the United Nations—will identify, monitor and deter individuals who exhibit, express or engage in anything that could be construed as extremist.

Consider how Attorney General Loretta Lynch describes the initiative:

As residents and experts in their communities, local leaders are often best positioned to pinpoint sources of unrest and discord; best equipped to identify signs of potential danger; and best able to recognize and accommodate community cultures, traditions, sensitivities, and customs.  By creating a series of partnerships that draws on the knowledge and expertise of our local officials, we can create a more effective response to this virulent threat.

Translation: U.S. police agencies are embarking on an effort to identify and manage potential extremist “threats,” violent or otherwise, before they can become actual threats. (If you want a foretaste of how “extreme” things could get in the U.S., new anti-terrorism measures in the U.K. require that extremists be treated like pedophiles and banned from working with youngsters and vulnerable people.)

The government’s war on extremists, of which the Strong Cities program is a part, is being sold to Americans in much the same way that the USA Patriot Act was sold to Americans: as a means of combating terrorists who seek to destroy America.

For instance, making the case for the government’s war on domestic extremism, the Obama administration has suggested that it may require greater legal powers to combat violent attacks by lone wolves (such as “people motivated by racial and religious hatred and anti-government views” who “communicate their hatred over the Internet and through social media”).

Enter the government’s newest employee: a domestic terrorism czar.

However, as we now know, the USA Patriot Act was used as a front to advance the surveillance state, allowing the government to establish a far-reaching domestic spying program that has turned every American citizen into a criminal suspect.

Similarly, the concern with the government’s anti-extremism program is that it will, in many cases, be utilized to render otherwise lawful, nonviolent activities as potentially extremist.

Keep in mind that the government agencies involved in ferreting out American “extremists” will carry out their objectives—to identify and deter potential extremists—in concert with fusion centers (of which there are 78 nationwide, with partners in the private sector and globally), data collection agencies, behavioral scientists, corporations, social media, and community organizers, and by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance, facial recognition, predictive policing, biometrics, and behavioral epigenetics (in which life experiences alter one’s genetic makeup).

This is pre-crime on an ideological scale, and it’s been a long time coming.

For example, in 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released two reports, one on “Rightwing Extremism,” which broadly defines rightwing extremists as individuals and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely,” and one on “Leftwing Extremism,” which labeled environmental and animal rights activist groups as extremists.

Incredibly, both reports use the words ‘terrorist’ and ‘extremist’ interchangeably.

That same year, the DHS launched Operation Vigilant Eagle, which calls for surveillance of military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, characterizing them as extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats because they may be “disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war.”

These reports indicate that for the government, anyone seen as opposing the government—whether they’re Left, Right or somewhere in between—can be labeled an extremist.

Fast forward a few years, and you have the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which President Obama has continually re-upped, that allows the military to take you out of your home and lock you up with no access to friends, family or the courts if you’re seen as an extremist.

Now connect the dots, from the 2009 Extremism reports to the NDAA and the UN’s Strong Cities Network with its globalized police forces, the National Security Agency’s far-reaching surveillance networks, and fusion centers that collect and share surveillance data between local, state and federal police agencies.

Add in tens of thousands of armed, surveillance drones that will soon blanket American skies, and facial recognition technology that will identify and track you wherever you go and whatever you do. And then to complete the circle, toss in the real-time crime centers being deployed in cities across the country, which will be attempting to “predict” crimes and identify criminals before they happen based on widespread surveillance, complex mathematical algorithms and prognostication programs.

Hopefully you’re getting the picture, which is how easy it is for the government to identify, label and target individuals as “extremists.”

We’re living in a scary world.

Unless we can put the brakes on this dramatic expansion and globalization of the government’s powers, we’re not going to recognize this country 20 years from now.

Frankly, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the landscape has already shifted dramatically from what it was like 10 or 20 years ago. It’s taken less than a generation for our freedoms to be eroded and the police state structure to be erected, expanded and entrenched.

Rest assured that the government will not save us from the chains of the police state. The UN’s Strong Cities Network program will not save us. The next occupant of the White House will not save us. For that matter, anarchy and violent revolution will not save us.

If there is to be any hope of freeing ourselves, it rests—as it always has—at the local level, with you and your fellow citizens taking part in grassroots activism, which takes a trickle-up approach to governmental reform by implementing change at the local level.

Attend local city council meetings, speak up at town hall meetings, organize protests and letter-writing campaigns, and employ “militant nonviolent resistance” and civil disobedience, which Martin Luther King Jr. used to great effect through the use of sit-ins, boycotts and marches.

And then, while you’re at it, urge your local governments to nullify everything the federal government does that is illegitimate, egregious or blatantly unconstitutional.

If this sounds anti-government or extremist, perhaps it is, in much the same way that King himself was considered anti-government and extremist. Recognizing that “freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed,” King’s tactics—while nonviolent—were extreme by the standards of his day.

As King noted in his 1963 “Letter from Birmingham City Jail”:

[A]s I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a bit of satisfaction from being considered an extremist. Was not Jesus an extremist in love—“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you.” Was not Abraham Lincoln an extremist—“This nation cannot survive half slave and half free.” Was not Thomas Jefferson an extremist—“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” So the question is not whether we will be extremist but what kind of extremist will we be. Will we be extremists for hate or will we be extremists for love?

So how do you not only push back against the police state’s bureaucracy, corruption and cruelty, but also launch a counterrevolution aimed at reclaiming control over the government using nonviolent means?

Take a cue from King.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

Analysis: Here’s What The Bible Says About The Muslim Claims To Holy Sites In The Land Of Israel

Are the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus (Shechem) and Rachel’s Tomb near Bethlehem holy Muslim sites? And what about the Temple Mount? Are the Muslims the only ones who have a right to pray there?

The Palestinian Arabs and their leaders clearly think so and act upon it. They don’t hesitate to use violence to prevent freedom of worship as guaranteed by Israeli law and deny Jews entry to their holy places, and they are encouraged to do so by the Arab countries.

This week, the Palestinians ensured support for their denial of Jewish heritage sites in the land of Israel from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

UNESCO partly adopted the Palestinian position and voted for a resolution that recognizes Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem and the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron as “Muslim sites” and as an “integral part of Palestine.”

The UN organization, which is supposed to guard heritage sites and proper education in the world, condemned in the same resolution “Israeli aggression” and “illegal” measures that “restrict access and freedom of worship” on the Temple Mount.

The Palestinian bid to get UNESCO to recognize the Western Wall (the last remaining wall of the Jewish Temple) as a Muslim site and an “integral part of the Al-Aqsa Mosque,” was thwarted at the last moment. This happened after Jewish organizations and the Israeli government condemned the proposal and said the Palestinian move was a “shameful and deceitful attempt to rewrite history.”

UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova disowned the Western Wall clause in the draft resolution that was submitted by several Muslim countries, and said it was a dangerous idea. She called upon UNESCO members to “make decisions that do not further fuel tensions on the ground.”

The resolution recognized that the “Al-Haram Al-Ibrahimi/Tomb of the Patriarchs and the Bilal Ibn Rabah Mosque/Rachel’s Tomb” were Muslim sites and an integral part of Palestine and was adopted by 26 UNESCO member states. Six countries rejected the resolution, and the rest of the UNESCO members abstained during the vote.

The Palestinian Authority became a full member of UNESCO in October 2014 and immediately made clear that the membership would be used to continue its global political war against Israel that aims to delegitimize the Jewish State.

The PA uses the automatic Muslim majority in UN organizations to weaken the position of Israel and to get recognition for the (non-existent) “State of Palestine.”

By condemning “Israeli aggression” on the Temple Mount, UNESCO is turning things on their head. It was in fact Muslim gangs that harassed Jews on the Temple Mount and used the Al-Aqsa Mosque for attacks on Israeli security forces long before the current explosion of Arab violence started.

Furthermore, contrary to what UNESCO claims, it was Israel that took measures to defuse tensions at the site. One of the measures was a ban on Jewish prayer on the holiest place in Judaism. Muslims enjoyed unlimited access until they indulged in violent riots and attacked Jews with stones and knives.

At the root of the problem lies the Muslim denial of any Jewish history in Judaism’s holiest place. This denial is rather odd because the Temple in Jerusalem is mentioned in the Quran in Surah 17:7:

“If you do good, you do good for yourselves; and if you do evil, (you do it) to yourselves.” Then when the final promise came, (We sent your enemies) to sadden your faces and to enter the temple in Jerusalem, as they entered it the first time, and to destroy what they had taken over with (total) destruction.

So the Quran clearly states that there stood a Temple in Jerusalem and confirmed what the Bible and other sources say about the destruction of the Jewish holy site. Nevertheless, Arab and Muslim leaders continue to deny any Jewish claim on the site–and Jewish history in Israel in general.

The Temple Mount is mentioned in the Bible in many places, but few people know that the place was purchased by King David. The fact that the Bible elaborates on the purchase is not happenstance but has a deeper meaning, the Jewish sages say.

Three Jewish holy places were purchased: the Temple Mount in Jerusalem by King David, the Tomb of the Patriarchs (Ma’arat HaMachpela) by Avraham and the land where Joseph’s remains were buried by Jacob. The Sages say the fact that the Bible mentions these purchases in detail is meant to emphasize the eternal Jewish ownership of the sites.

Here’s what the Bible says about David’s purchase of Mount Moriah, the site where Shlomo built the Temple later:

And David said to Ornan, ‘Give me the site of the threshing floor that I may build on it an altar to the Lord give it to me at its full price so that the plague may be averted from the people.’ Then Ornan said to David, ‘Take it; and let my lord the king do what seems good to him; see, I give the oxen for burnt offerings, and the threshing sledges for the wood, and the wheat for a cereal offering. I give it all.’ But King David said to Ornan, ‘No, but I will buy it for the full price; I will not take for the Lord what is yours, nor offer burnt offerings that cost me nothing.’

So David paid Ornan six hundred shekels of gold by weight for the site. And David built there an altar to the Lord and presented burnt offerings and peace offerings, and called upon the Lord, and he answered him with fire from heaven upon the altar of burnt offering.” (I Chron. 21:22-26)

Joseph Tomb has some religious meaning for Muslims, but that didn’t prevent them from burning down the site during the Second Intifada and during violent riots earlier this month. Here too, Muslims (and now UNESCO) do not recognize Jewish heritage.

Joseph’s tomb is located on a plot land that was purchased by Jacob (Israel) the father of the Jewish people.

Here’s what the Bible says about that purchase:

And Jacob came safely to the city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, on his way from Paddan-Aram; and he camped before the city. And from the sons of Hamor, Shechem’s father, he bought for a hundred pieces of money the piece of land on which he had pitched his tent. There he erected an altar and called it El-Elohe-Israel. (Bereshit/Genesis 33:18-20)

The Ma’arat HaMachpela in Hebron is the place where the tombs of Abraham, Jacob, Yitzchak, Leah, Rebecca and Sarah are located. The Muslims deny any Jewish connection to the place; and until the Six-Day-War in 1967, Jews were only allowed to pray on the stairs leading up to the entrance of the shrine.

Today, Jews have only access to a small part of the complex, except for the Passover holiday and the Feast of the Tabernacles (Sukkot), when the Ma’arat HaMachpela is closed for Muslim worshipers.

As said, the Quran does not mention the tomb of the Patriarchs; but the Bible tells us that Avraham, the first Jew, bought the place from a Canaanite man by the name of Ephron:

“Then Abraham bowed dawn before the people of the land. And he said to Ephron in the hearing of the people of the land. But if you will hear me; I will give the price of the field; accept it from me, that I may bury my dead there.’ Ephron answered Abraham, ‘My lord, listen to me; a piece of land worth four hundred shekels of silver, what is that between you and me? Bury your dead,’ Abraham agreed with Ephron; and Abraham weighed out for Ephron the silver that he had named in the hearing of the Hittites, four hundred shekels of silver, according to the weights current among the merchants. So the field of Ephron in Machpelah, which was to the east of Mamre, the field with the cave which was in it and all the trees that were in the field, throughout its whole area, was made over to Abraham as a possession in the presence of the Hittites, before all who went in at the gate of his city.

After this, Abraham buried Sarah, his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah east of Mamre (that is, Hebron) in the land of Canaan. The field and the cave that is in it were made over to Abraham as a possession for a burying place by the Hittites.” (Bereshit/Genesis 23:1-20)

The story about Rachel’s burial along the road near Bethlehem is only mentioned in the Bible, not in the Quran.

The book of Bereshit (Genesis) tells us that Jacob buried his beloved wife Rachel along the road from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. To this day, Jews from all over the world come to Rachel’s tomb to pray. The tomb of the mother of the Jewish people is a symbol of comfort for people in distress, and for women who have had trouble becoming pregnant.

Rachel’s tomb was never claimed by Arabs as a Muslim holy site, but that changed in the year 2000 at the start of the second Intifada.

Nadav Shagrai, a researcher for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs who wrote an essay about the history of Rachel’s Tomb and the root of the Muslim claim to the site, had the following to say about the Muslim claim:

In 2000, after hundreds of years of recognizing the site as Rachel’s Tomb, Muslims began calling it the “Bilal ibn Rabah mosque.”20 Members of the Wakf used the name first in 1996, but it has since entered the national Palestinian discourse.

Bilal ibn Rabah was an Ethiopian known in Islamic history as a slave who served in the house of the Prophet Muhammad as the first muezzin (the individual who calls the faithful to prayer five times a day). When Muhammad died, ibn Rabah went to fight the Muslim wars in Syria, was killed in 642 CE, and buried in either Aleppo or Damascus. The Palestinian Authority claimed that according to Islamic tradition, it was Muslim conquerors who named the mosque erected at Rachel’s Tomb after Bilal ibn Rabah.

The Palestinian claim ignored the fact that Ottoman firmans (mandates or decrees) gave Jews in the Land of Israel the right of access to the site at the beginning of the nineteenth century. The Palestinian claim even ignored accepted Muslim tradition, which admires Rachel and recognizes the site as her burial place.

“Well-known Orientalist Professor Yehoshua Porat has called the ‘tradition’ the Muslims referred to as ‘false.’ He said the Arabic name of the site was ‘the Dome of Rachel, a place where the Jews prayed,’” Shagrai wrote.

So is UNESCO right, and are these sites holy Muslim sites? And do people other than Muslims have a right to enter and pray on the Temple Mount?

You can judge for yourself.

Watch: Netanyahu Stunned By Reporter’s Absurd Question- ‘Are We Living On The Same Planet?’

(Netanyahu’s remarks regarding meeting with Abbas begin at 13:21 in the video above.)

At a press conference on Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared incredulous when a BBC reporter asked him if he would be willing to meet with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, as Secretary of State John Kerry has suggested.

“He’s going to call on me for resuming negotiations?” he indignantly asked the reporter. “Are we living on the same planet, Liz? I have been calling day-in, day-out in every forum, in the United Nations, in the U.S. Congress, in Israel, in Jerusalem, in Tel Aviv. I haven’t done so in Nepal because I haven’t visited it. I’ve called on President Abbas to resume unconditional negotiations immediately. Right now, as we speak, we can meet. I have no problem with that.”

“Come on, get with the program. These people don’t want negotiations and they’re inciting for violence. Direct your questions to them,” Netanyahu said.

The prime minister added, “You should direct your questions to [Abbas]. You can’t give him a pass. In fact, the international community has been giving Abu Mazen [Abbas] a pass all these years…And when you give somebody a pass when they’re inciting violence, they continue to incite violence. And guess what? That violence has picked up, by Palestinian youngsters, and they go out and murder Jews. And they murder peace.”

Before Nethanyahu spoke at the press conference, Israeli officials gave a presentation to reporters regarding how Palestinian leadership has been inciting the recent wave of violence in Jerusalem, which has left 8 Israelis and 31 Palestinians dead.

One official quoted Abbas from a recent televised address, in which he said: “They (Israelis) have no right to desecrate the Al-Aqsa Mosque with their filthy feet” and, “We welcome every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem.”

Netanayahu called the allegations that the Israelis are trying to change the status quo on the Temple Mount, including Al-Aqsa Mosque, “false.”

He said the Palestinians real agenda is and has been to force the Jewish people to leave. “They’re attacking us, not because they want peace or don’t want peace. It is because they don’t want us here. If they are frustrated, I assure you that frustration will continue, because we’re going to continue to be here.”

As some in the press issue accusations that Israel has used excessive force in dealing with the attacks, “What do you think would happen in New York if you saw people rushing into crowds trying to murder people. What do you think they would do? Do you think they would do anything different from what we’re doing?” the prime minister asked. 

h/t: Right Scoop