“President Obama is a threat to our country,” Donald Trump told me in a recent interview.
He’s right. Mr. Obama now poses a clear and present danger to America.
His stubborn insistence on resettling so-called “refugees” from Syria threatens to Balkanize our country and subvert it from within. The president is willing to potentially sacrifice countless Americans on the altar of liberal multiculturalism. He is gambling with our lives.
Obama’s resettlement plan is replete with lies and progressive propaganda. At first, the administration said it only wanted 10,000 refugees to enter the country. Now, the White House is openly talking about allowing 250,000 per year.
In fact, the president recently announced that his goal is an “open-ended” refugee resettlement effort — meaning millions could be allowed to flood our country.
Moreover, who are these refugees? The answer is simple: They are predominantly young Muslim men. In Europe, nearly 80 percent of the migrants pouring into countries, such as Germany, Sweden and France, are Muslim males in their teens and 20s. In other words, they are the very profile of potential Islamic Jihadists.
Yet, while Europeans are waking up to the civilizational invasion taking place, our morally arrogant liberal elites continue to peddle the fiction that only “widows and orphans” will be allowed to enter.
The administration also claims that the Muslim Syrian refugees are the “most thoroughly screened and vetted category of travelers” who can come into the United States.
That is another lie. For the Obama regime and its media allies are deliberately leaving out one salient fact: We do not pick the asylum-seekers, the United Nations does. In particular, it is the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Antonio Guterres, in coordination with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) that selects which refugees can be settled within our country.
It is not the State Department, Homeland Security or even the White House that chooses the refugees, but an anti-American leftist bureaucrat and a global Islamist organization.
Mr. Guterres is a self-described “socialist,” who champions open borders and repopulating First World nations with Third World peoples as part of a radical internationalist agenda to redistribute wealth. From 1999 until 2005, he was the president of Socialist International, a global network of over 160 Marxist and far-left-wing parties active in about 100 countries. Their goal: “one-world government” through unlimited immigration.
The OIC is an international Islamic body that consists of 57 Muslim nations. It has deep links to the Muslim Brotherhood. Based in Saudi Arabia, the OIC’s founding charter openly espouses the expansion of Sharia Law and defends what it calls “legitimate Jihad.” In other words, it is an Islamist front group.
Think about this: Obama is entrusting the security of Americans — enabling the very “refugees” who could be coming to a town or community near you — to U.N. leftist globalists and radical Islamists. His policy is not only irresponsible and reckless; it borders on the criminal.
The Islamic State of Iraq and Levant has already boasted it has infiltrated the waves of Muslim migrants with thousands of Jihadists.
In the Paris attacks, which killed 130 and wounded over 350 persons, ISIL made good on its threats: One of the terrorists managed to enter France posing as a “refugee” with a fake Syrian passport.
As Investor’s Business Daily reports, what Islamists are engaging in is what they call “hijra” — immigration Jihad. The aim of radical Muslims is to invade and conquer Western lands through mass migration.
“Muhammad told his followers to migrate and spread Islam in order to dominate all the lands of the world,” Ann Corcoran, the author of “Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America,” said in an interview with IBD.
“He said they were obliged to do so — and that’s exactly what they are doing now with the help and support of the U.N.”
The Boston Marathon terrorist bombings should have taught Americans the folly of welcoming “refugees” from Muslim hotspots. The Tsarnaevs were from Chechnya. They were allegedly “screened” and “vetted.”
Yet, this did not stop them from blowing up pressure cooker bombs at the finish line, murdering four innocent civilians and wounding over 260 — dozens of them maimed and crippled.
Their massacre was part of a larger war against the West to establish a global Islamic caliphate.
We are about to drink from a poisoned chalice. Obama is deliberately — and dangerously — bringing in an army of Muslim migrants. Like the Tsarnaevs and in France, some of them are bound to be Islamist butchers.
It is collective suicide masquerading as compassion. Americans must block his Trojan horse before it’s too late.
Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at WorldTribune.com and the host of “The Kuhner Report” weekdays 12-3 pm EST on WRKO AM-680 in Boston.
Editor’s Note – Now that Netanyahu has stunned both his country’s leftist media and ours, and set Obama into a tirade, Obama is threatening Netanyahu before he even calls to congratulate him on his stunning victory.
We and many others have chronicled Obama’s loathe for Netanyahu for years, but now, it is not even arguable anymore – and Obama is about to throw our greatest Middle East ally under the bus in favor of the Arabs, or as the left likes to call them, the Palestinians.
Now Obama is going to cut him off at the knees by going around him to the U.N. – removing a long history of defending Israel in that farce of a world peace organization:
From Tel Aviv to Turtle Bay – The White House hoped a new Israeli prime minister would resume peace talks with the Palestinians. With Netanyahu holding on, the administration is weighing a turn to the U.N. to help force a deal.
After years of blocking U.N. efforts to pressure Israelis and Palestinians into accepting a lasting two-state solution, the United States is edging closer toward supporting a U.N. Security Council resolution that would call for the resumption of political talks to conclude a final peace settlement, according to Western diplomats. (Read more at Foreign Policy.)
The petulant Obama must get his way; by hook or crook, and he harbors grudges like no other President. Dick Cheney is correct, Obama is the worst President, eclipsing Jimmy Carter easily – or is it badly?
Once again, Obama’s view of the world, and that of John Kerry is proving to be a continuing failure for the best interests of freedom loving people in favor of Palestine and our enemies. Look for him to coddle Hezbollah now as well!
Benjamin Netanyahu and Barack Obama on collision course over Palestinian two-state solution
Israel and America set for new confrontation after US president bluntly restates belief in Palestinian state to solve Middle East problem
A triumphant Benjamin Netanyahu appeared to be on a new collision course with Barack Obama on Wednesday night after the US president bluntly restated his belief in a Palestinian state and criticised the Israeli leader’s re-election campaign tactics.
In a pointed intervention, Mr Obama was said to be “deeply concerned” about comments made about Israel’s Arab population, a spokesman said, calling it “divisive”.
“The Obama administration is deeply concerned by the use of divisive rhetoric in Israel that sought to marginalise Arab Israeli citizens,” Josh Earnest, a White House spokesman told reporters. “This rhetoric undermines the values and Democratic ideals that have been important to our democracy and an important part of what binds the United States and Israel together. These are views the administration intends to communicate directly to the Israelis.”
The criticism appeared to refer to comments Mr Netanyahu made in a video posted on Facebook on election day on Tuesday when he attempted to mobilise supporters by warning that Arabs were “voting in droves” and being bussed to polling stations by Left-wing groups.
The White House intervention rudely interrupted the Israeli prime minister’s celebrations of an unexpected landslide re-election win and followed Mr Netanyahu’s eve-of-poll abandonment of a commitment to recognise Palestinian statehood as part of a peace agreement.
Mr Netanyahu – desperately trying to woo Right-wing voters – created fresh doubts about the future of the Middle East peace process when he said on Monday that a Palestinian state would not be created if he were re-elected.
The Israeli leader has previously committed himself to accepting a demilitarised Palestinian state as part of a comprehensive peace deal in a 2009 speech at Tel Aviv’s Bar Ilan University. He said that commitment was no longer relevant in a region threatened by Islamist radicals.
But in a thinly-veiled rebuke of Mr Netanyahu’s volte face, Mr Earnest told reporters that Mr Obama still believed that a two-state solution – usually defined as an independent Palestine and Israel living side-by-side – was the best means of bringing stability to the Middle East.
“It has been the policy of the United States for more than 20 years that a two-state solution is the goal of resolving the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians,” he added. “Based on Prime Minister Netanyahu’s comments, the United States will reevaluate our position and the path forward in this situation.”
He said Mr Obama had not yet called Mr Netanyahu to congratulate him but would do so in the coming days.
The two men have had a notoriously frosty relationship – which worsened this month when the Israeli leader accepted an invitation behind Mr Obama’s back to address the US Congress, where he criticised the White House’s efforts to reach a deal with Iran over its nuclear programme.
In further remarks, the spokesman said Mr Obama did not believe Mr Netanyahu’s re-election win would have a serious impact on the Iran negotiations, which have reached a crucial phase.
The Obama administration’s comments followed statements from the European Union, the United Nations and the Palestinians demanding a renewed commitment to the stalled peace process.
Palestinian officials responded to Mr Netanyahu’s re-election by threatening to intensify diplomatic moves aimed at pressuring Israel, including pursuing it for possible war crimes in the International Criminal Court, which the Palestinian Authority is due to join on April 1.
A spokesman for Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority leader, said he expected the new Israeli government to “recognise the two-state solution”.
“On this basis, we will continue to cooperate with any Israeli government that is committed to international resolutions,” said the spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudeineh.
The renewed emphasis on peace came after Mr Netanyahu vowed on Wednesday to quickly assemble a new Right-wing government that would safeguard the “welfare and security” of all Israelis.
A day after a surprise landslide victory, the prime minister said he would waste no time by putting together a new coalition “within two to three weeks”.
“Reality will not wait for us,” he said. “The citizens of Israel expect us to quickly put together a leadership that will work for them regarding security, economy and society as we committed to do – and we will do so.”
The pledge came as final results from Tuesday’s poll showed his Likud party winning 30 seats in the 120-member Knesset, Israel’s parliament, decisively outstripping the 24 won by the Zionist Union, which pre-election surveys had suggested could emerge as the biggest party.
It paved the way for Mr Netanyahu to serve a fourth term as Israeli prime minister during which he is likely to become his country’s longest-serving leader, surpassing David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding leader.
The result also confounded exit polls that showed the two groupings in a dead heat – an outcome which would have raised the possibility of them joining forces in a national unity government, or grand coalition.
That appeared unlikely on Wednesday as Likud officials predicted a new conservative government formed with smaller Right-wing and religious parties. Isaac Herzog, the Zionist Union leader, ruled out entering a grand coalition by conceding that his future lay in the opposition.
Mr Netanyahu is instead expected to cobble together a coalition with like-minded partners such as the Jewish Home party before reaching out to Moshe Kahlon, a former Likud minister whose new Kulanu party won 10 seats by appealing to Israelis worried about socio-economic issues.
Mr Netanyahu’s victory was achieved through using “cannibalising” tactics that involved eating up support from smaller Right-wing parties by frightening their followers about the prospects of a Left-wing government ready to compromise Israel’s security, campaign insiders said.
As the prime minister’s poll ratings sunk, his chief strategist, Aron Shaviv, decided to make his woes the main theme in the campaign’s final days by constantly reminding voters that the man they know as “Bibi” really might lose.
Making a virtue of Mr Netanyahu’s vulnerability, the tactic targeted voters who had abandoned Likud for various parties positioned even further along the hardline spectrum, notably the Jewish Home, led by Naftali Bennett, which lost five seats in the election.
Meet Chistiana – this abbreviated list of associations below will tell you a lot and her words place the capstone on why Obama, Susan Rice, and Kerry consider climate change so important and that ISIS is not an existential threat to the US. Guess what, its not about climate change, its about intentionally transforming the world’s economic development model.
Here is here CV and her words are highlighted below, see also “Desperate Dash of Global Warming” at the New American
She is the type that drives and praises Obama, Susan Rice, and John Kerry. They align themselves with “junk science” to promote “junk economics” and that Agenda 21 crowd, now isn’t that a National Security Threat. Now you know why they say climate change is a bigger threat to our national security than ISIS.
UN Climate Chief: We Are Remaking The World Economy
The United Nation’s climate chief says that reordering the global economy to fight climate change is the “most difficult” task the international body has ever undertaken.
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history,” Christiana Figueres, who heads up the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, told reporters.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for the, at least, 150 years, since the industrial revolution,” Figueres said.
Figueres’s remarks come ahead of a meeting in Geneva next week where delegates will pour over draft treaty texts that the U.N. hopes countries will agree to in December. She doesn’t expect global warming to be solved by one treaty, but was optimistic in will be solved in the coming years.
“That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 – you choose the number,” she said. “It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.”
The climate chief even held up President Obama as a shining example of steps countries can take to tackle global warming.
“The international community is quite grateful for the fact that in his second term, President Obama has turned his attention quite clearly and quite decisively to climate change,” Figueres told reporters.
“He has not only spoken about his commitment both to his national agenda on climate change, but also to the international process, and has been quite clear in his political leadership,” Figueres said, touting the EPA’s success cutting carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
The EPA will finalize rules to cut carbon emissions from new and existing power plants this summer. Critics of these rules say they will hurt the economy through job losses and higher energy prices. Supporters, however, say it will spur green energy development and set an example for other countries to follow.
Obama’s 2016 budget proposal boosts EPA funding to help it finalize emissions rules for power plants. The budget would also give the EPA $4 billion to reward states that reduce emissions even more than federal mandates require.
Figueres also cheered Obama’s agreement with China to reduce carbon emissions by 2030 and to give the U.N.’s climate fund a $3 billion boost.
“So for all of these reasons, certainly a very welcome leadership from the United States as a single nation,” Figueres said. “Countries can attain a certain level of emission reductions on their own, but they can do much more if they collaborate with each other, in particular with certain specific sectors.”
But while Figueres seems rosy about a deal, there are already signs of countries backing away from a tough international climate treaty.
France’s foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, told an audience at an event in New Delhi, India that a climate treaty should not hurt national economic growth.
“An agreement that would leave some countries to consider their growth hampered by its provisions will not be accepted,” Fabius said.
End Note – this article originally appeared on another blog, the Denise Simon Experience and was expanded for publication here.
Editor’s Note – With all the hand wringing and accusations that Israel was committing war crimes in Gaza, who really is the war criminal? Palestinian supporters who act as if Hamas is a legitimate governmental entity need to learn a lot about the laws of war and what it means to provide support for a terrorist entity.
The only war crimes committed come from perpetrators in Gaza, not from beyond. Every argument the Palestinians/Hamas and their supporters use is actually proof of their own crimes. Collateral damage and death is solely the responsibility of Hamas because they caused the circumstances – with full knowledge and by design. Law is based in intent – Hamas intends to commit war crimes, Israelis intend the opposite, but cannot stand idly by just because they are far stronger.
Of course, according to Hamas/Palestinians and their supporters, the actions of Hamas are somehow justified, yet Israel’s responses with force are not. Why? Because Israel is blockading Gaza. Of course, even that accusation has little basis in reality, but since when did reality matter to the romanticism of all things Palestinian?
They forget that Egypt is also participating in the blockade, and aid has been provided by the Israelis and others since Hamas took over and it is the source of all the supplies to create the terror tunnels.
The other question to ask is why UNWRA has failed so miserably, despite billions in aid and 65 years of effort. The answer is that UNWRA is complicit and the UN itself is propagating the problems through dubious accusations to keep the money flowing. What has UNWRA really done since 1949?
UNRWA actually employs many from Hamas in its cottage industry, and it is in their best interests to keep the poor Palestinians stuck in a cycle of misery, much by their own hands. People have spent their entire professional careers working for UNRWA – quite a stable job isn’t it?
Irrational support for Hamas/Palestine (Including other terror organizations in Gaza) is as irrational as accusing Israel of war crimes when no nation on Earth has ever practiced such caution in war. In the article below, we see exactly how the laws of nations in war have been transgressed, repeatedly, for years and years, by the Palestinians and their enablers at UNWRA.
For 90 Minutes, Jewish Leaders Tell UN’s Ban Ki-moon About Hamas Abuses, List 19 War Crimes
For a full 90 minutes on Wednesday, Jewish leaders told United Nations Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon about the litany of abuses of international rules of warfare – 19 in total – by Hamas in Gaza.
The group included Rabbis Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper, directors of The Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Anti-Defamation League’s Abraham Foxman, Malcolm Hoenlein of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and representatives from B’nai Brith and Hadassah.
Rabbi Cooper told The Algemeiner on Thursday, “Bottom line, the Jewish world will have to be more proactive on the international stage, not only to defend Israel, but ourselves as well. We will continue to interact with Ban Ki Moon to insure that this important leader will be more responsive.”
In a follow-up note to Ban after their meeting, the SWC rabbis summed up the argument they presented. They said that “we must frankly ask you how many times will the world allow itself to be held hostage by Hamas? This is the third time since 2005 when Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza that Hamas has brought death and destruction to the people of Gaza. Once again they are using the people of Gaza, the civilian infrastructure and UN facilities in its non-stop campaign to terrorize the Jewish state.”
During the 90 minute meeting, according to Rabbi Cooper, the SWC urged the UN to announce an official inquiry into the use of various UNRWA schools by Hamas to store and launch rockets for the benefit of the UN’s own reputation. They also called on the UN not to permit the UNRWA to supervise the billions in reconstruction funds expected for Gaza.
“The systematic hijacking of previous aid, cement, and building materials by Hamas to build an underground superhighway of terror is scandalous and a violation of the wishes of the donors who did not contribute funds for rockets or tunnels,” they said. “Those who failed to stop such theft and serial abuse of humanitarian aid, must be held accountable and should not have any involvement in supervising or dispersing of future funds.”
They also said that work shouldn’t begin until “the total disarming of Hamas and the destruction of all of the thousands of rockets and missiles Hamas still harbors.”
The Jewish human rights group that works to protect Jews against anti-Semitism also raised that core issue with Ban. “There has been an explosion of anti-Semitism and genocidal hatred against Israel from Europe to Australia,” they said. “Rather than denouncing this toxic situation Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, contributed to it by being so rabidly one-sided in her criticisms of Israel.”
“During her tenure there was no effort to investigate previous crimes against humanity by Hamas, including its own admission that 160 Palestinian children died building their terrorism tunnels. Her behavior demands a public censure from the Secretary General.”
They asked that “with a human rights disaster of epic proportions in Syria, with ethnic cleansing in Iraq, with a difficult situation in Ukraine and with continuing human rights outrages in North Korea,” the upcoming UN General Assembly “not be allowed to degenerate into an anti-Israel hate fest,” and noted that the UNGA will coincide with the Jewish High Holy Days.
“Anymore demonization of Israel emanating from the halls of the United Nations will only contribute to anti-Semitism globally,” they said.
To hammer home their point about Hamas violating human rights, although Israel is accused of doing so by the UN Human Rights Commission, the SWC rabbis left Ban with a detailed list they compiled of the 19 violations made by Hamas, with full notes and citations for Ban to reflect upon.
In further comments to The Algemeiner, Rabbi Cooper said Ban “refused to get involved with the travesty at UN Human Rights Council.”
Read the SWC’s list of Hamas’s 19 violations of the rules of war:
1) Hamas’ rocket attacks directed at Israel’s civilian population centers deliberately violates the basic principles of distinction (Additional Protocol I, arts. 48, 51(2), 52(1).) Any doubt about this is resolved by the fact that Hamas itself has boasted of its intention to hit population centres. It is well accepted in customary international law that intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking part in hostilities constitutes a war crime. (Rome Statute, art. 8(2)(b)(i))
2) Staging of Attacks From Residential Areas and Protected Sites: The Law of Armed Conflict not only prohibits targeting an enemy’s civilians; it also requires parties to an armed conflict to distinguish their combatant forces from their own civilians, and not to base operations in or near civilian structures, especially protected sites such as schools, medical facilities and places of worship. As the customary law principle is reflected in Article 51(7) of Additional Protocol I: The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or shield, favor or impede military operations.
3) Use of Civilian Homes and Public Institutions as Bases of Operation – see (2) for citations.
4) Misuse of Medical Facilities and Ambulances – Any time Hamas uses an ambulance to transport its fighters it is violating the Law of Armed Conflict: Under Article 23(f) of the 1907 Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, which reflects customary international law, it is especially forbidden … [t]o make improper use of a flag of truce, … as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention. Article 44 of the First Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (1949)also provides that: … the emblem of the Red Cross on a white ground … may not be employed, either in time of peace or in time of war, except to indicate or to protect the medical units and establishments…
5) Booby-trapping of Civilian Areas – see (2) for citations.
6) Blending in with Civilians and Use of Human Shields – As the ICRC rule states, lilt can be concluded that the use of human shields requires an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives.
7) Exploitation of Children – Hamas has paramilitary summer camps for kids. There are reports, from this war and previous ones, of children fighting and being used for tunnel digging. violates the Law of Armed Conflict, including prohibitions against allowing children to take part in hostilities. As customary international law is reflected in this regard in Additional Protocol I, the parties to a conflict must take “all feasible measures” to ensure that children lido not take a direct part in hostilities and, in particular, they shall refrain from recruiting them into their armed forces. (Additional Protocol I, art. 77(2))
8 ) Interference with Humanitarian Relief Efforts – While Israel kept its end of humanitarian truces. Hamas used them to shoot rockets into Israel, including the Kerem Shalom crossing where humanitarian goods are brought into Gaza. All of these actions violate the Law of Armed Conflict, which requires parties to allow the entry of humanitarian supplies and to guarantee their safety. Article 59 of the Fourth Geneva Convention requires parties in an armed conflict to permit the free passage of [humanitarian] consignments and shall guarantee their protection. Article 60 of the same Convention protects the shipments from being diverted from their intended purpose, something Hamas has certainly done in the past and is reported to have done in this conflict as well.
9) Hostage-taking – The Fourth Geneva Conventions, article 34, says flatly “The taking of hostages is prohibited.” This is not an “arrest” as Israel-haters claim, and this is not a prisoner of war situation as Hamas has made clear – the purpose of Hamas’ hostage-taking falls under the definition on the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages: “Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure or to continue to detain another person (hereinafter referred to as the “hostage “) in order to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental organization, a natural or juridical person, or a group of persons, to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage commits the offence of taking of hostages (“hostage-taking ‘) within the meaning of this Convention.
10) Using the uniform of the enemy – Additional Protocol I prohibits the use of enemy flags, military emblems, insignia or uniforms “while engaging in attacks or in order to shield, favour, protect or impede military operations”.  Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “making improper use … of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts when it results in death or serious personal injury.  According to some, this is considered perfidy, a war crime. (h/t Joshua)
11) Violence aimed at spreading terror among the civilian population – Rule 2 of ICRC’s Customary IHL is Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited. II It quotes Article 51(2) of Additional Protocol I prohibits “acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population”. Hamas rockets are aimed not only at killing civilians, but also at spreading terror among Israelis.
12)Targeting civilian objects, such as airports or nuclear power plants – Rule 7 of the Customary IHL says “Attacks must not be directed against civilian objects, quoting Articles 48 and 52(2)of Additional Protocol I.
13. Indiscriminate attacks – Besides targeting civilians and civilian objects, Rule 11 of the ICRC CIHL states flatly that “Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. II By definition, every Qassam rocket attack and most of the other rocket and mortar attacks are by their very nature indiscriminate. See also Rule 71, “The use of weapons which are by nature indiscriminate is prohibited.
14) Proportionality in attack – ICRC’s Rule 14 states “Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited. Rocket attacks against civilians have zero military advantage, so by definition they are disproportionate to their military advantage. See also Rule 18: “Each party to the conflict must do everything feasible to assess whether the attack may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
15)Advance Warning – Rule 20 of the ICRC CIHL states “Each party to the conflict must give effective advance warning of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit. Given that Hamas has used the media and SMS calls to threaten Israelis, it is clear that they have the ability to warn before every rocket attack. Their failure to do so is a violation of IHL.
16) Protecting civilians – Rule 22 of the ICRC Customary IHL states, “The parties to the conflict must take all feasible precautions to protect the civilian population and civilian objects under their control against the effects of attacks. Hamas not only has failed to protect civilians in Gaza by building bomb shelters, they have deliberately put civilians in harm’s way.
17) Attacking medical units – Rule 28 states, Medical units exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances. Hamas has shot mortars at the Israeli field hospital, set up for Gazans, near the Erez crossing.
18) Protection of Journalists – Hamas has threatened journalists, implicitly and explicitly, accusing some of being spies and sometimes not allowing them to leave Gaza, making them effectively hostages. Rule 34 states “Civilian journalists engaged in professional missions in areas of armed conflict must be respected and protected as long as they are not taking a direct part in hostilities.
19) Mistreating the dead. Rule 113 says, Each party to the conflict must take all possible measures to prevent the dead from being despoiled. Mutilation of dead bodies is prohibited. Hamas has shown off an alleged chip cut out from the (presumably) dead body of Shaul Orono.
Editor’s Note – Two treaties continue in the Senate, the Law of the Sea Treaty, and the “small arms” treaty, both United Nations born attacks on our own sovereignty may soon be the law of the land if ratified by the Senate and signed by Obama.
Be very afraid that eventuality may occur. Both are quite unconstitutional and have no business being seriously considered, but they are. There appears to be no end to which this administration will go to chisel away at our sovereignty, and our unalienable rights. Call your Senator now and voice your opposition today.
Contact your Senator through this porthole, click here. Some pressure is being applied, but we cannot stop until both are dead, never to rise again. Please read more here:
Obama told to back off U.N. Gun Treaty
Lawmakers join general in declaring pact a threat to freedom
Over 100 members of Congress appear to share the concerns of a former Army general who has sounded the alarm over efforts by the Obama Administration to push through the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT.
“There has been a decree by the administration by the president and the secretary of state saying that our president will sign the United Nations small arms treaty, which is about how we will buy sell and control individual private weapons,” Boykin warned. “That means the United Nations, an international body will decide how you and I as Americans can buy and sell our weapons, how we control those weapons, who is authorized to have those weapons and where they are. This is a dangerous trend.”
The letter states that Congress is concerned the treaty could “pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.”
The letter goes on to declare that the Second Amendment guarantees the “fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms” and the U.S. has no business supporting a treaty that infringes on the Bill of Rights.
The ATT would specifically require signatories to identify and trace, in “a timely and reliable manner,” illicit small arms and light weapons. The information would be required to be submitted to the United Nations.
The treaty was opposed by the Bush administration, but President Obama’s administration reversed direction on the treaty. U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said the United States would support talks towards ratifying the treaty.
While the treaty is still in a draft stage, the United Nations is beginning a month-long process beginning this week to craft the final details of the treaty.
Supporters say the treaty is necessary to prevent rogue countries from being able to purchase guns from arms dealers. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said concerns about the treaty restricting individual rights are “misplaced” and that he supported its goals.
Critics of the treaty have long maintained that the treaty would lead to mandatory registration of all firearms and every sale; even those between individuals.
The congressional letter also takes issue with the “moral equivalence” of comparing America to totalitarian regimes and calls upon the administration to break consensus and reject the treaty. It goes on to remind the president and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that “the Constitution gives the power to regulate international commerce to Congress alone.”
The letter stated, “The Arms Trade Treaty must not in any way regulate the domestic manufacture, possession or sale of firearms or ammunition.”
It went on to state, “The establishment of any sort of international gun registry that could impede upon the privacy rights of law-abiding gun owners is a non-starter.”
While that letter was been touted in the mainstream media as an indication that Democrats are now opposing gun control, some pointed out that the letter actually proved the opposite. The Senators stated they support the general concept of the treaty but believe countries such as the U.S. should have “exclusive authority to regulate arms within their own borders.”
Critics point out that this statement indicates that the senators believe firearms registration is acceptable provided it is initiated by individual governments.
Please support our non-profit work at SUA
JOIN/SUBSCRIBE: Please join our team and receive periodic newsletters and announcements securely. (Your information will never be sold or transferred – Opt-out anytime.)
VOLUNTEER: If you are unable to donate your money, your time is just as valuable.
DONATIONS: Please consider a recurring monthly or a one-time donation.