Solsticewitch13's BOS

Friday, July 31, 2015

Sex Slaves

Islamic State, IS, has written an article about sex slaves in their magazine Dibiq. Now apologists for Islam say that IS has nothing to do with Islam. But IS makes it very clear that when they capture Kafir women and rape them they are only doing what Mohammed did. They quote four verses in the Koran about how Kafir women can be captured and used for sex. Mohammed had sex slaves and his closest companions had sex slaves.
Islamic State reminds Muslims that one of the benefits of sex slavery is that they convert to Islam to gain their freedom and produce Muslim children.
Islamic State is pure Islam.
WATCH VIDEO

http://media.clarionproject.org/files/islamic-state/isis-isil-islamic-state-magazine-issue%2B9-they-plot-and-allah-plots-sex-slavery.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink: http://www.politicalislam.com/sex-slaves/
copyright (c) CSPI, LLC, politicalislam.com
Use as needed, just give credit and do not edit.
www.politicalislam.com

Bill Warner | bw@politicalislam.com | Political Islam . com | PO Box 90806 Nashville, TN 37209 | Nashville, TN 37203

Email Marketing by

Qaeda in Syria claims capture of U.S.-backed rebels

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/07/31/Qaeda-in-Syria-claims-capture-of-U-S-backed-rebels-.html

Rebels from al-Qaeda-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra, also known as the Nusra Front, wave their brigade flag, as they step on the top of a Syrian air force helicopter at Taftanaz air base that was captured by the rebels in Idlib province, northern Syria. (File photo: AP)

Text size A A A

AFP, Beirut
Friday, 31 July 2015

Al-Qaeda’s Syria affiliate, Al-Nusra Front, said Friday it had captured “moderate” rebel fighters who had received training from the United States.

Al-Nusra accused Washington of recruiting “forces from what it calls ‘the moderate opposition’... to undergo a training and rehabilitation program run by the Central Intelligence Agency.

“A few days ago, one of these groups called Division 30 entered Syria... so Al-Nusra arrested several soldiers of this division,” the group said in an online statement.

It did not specify how many rebels had been captured, or where or when the incident took place.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitoring group had reported that Al-Nusra kidnapped eight rebels from Division 30 in a village in the northern province of Aleppo late Wednesday.

On Thursday, a U.S. defense department spokeswoman denied the report.

In its statement, Al-Nusra accused Division 30 of being “agents of American interests and projects in the area, to fight the ‘terrorist organizations,’ as they (the US and its rebel allies) described it.”

The jihadist group said Division 30 had coordinated with aircraft from the U.S.-led coalition attacking jihadists in Syria to strike Al-Nusra positions.

“We warn the soldiers of this division not to proceed with the American plan... Their return to the truth and the right way will be more beneficial,” the statement said.

Syria’s conflict began in March 2011 with anti-government protests, but has devolved into a multi-front civil war among rebels, regime forces, Kurdish fighters and jihadist groups.

Last Update: Friday, 31 July 2015 KSA 19:50 - GMT 16:50

Obama Goes Nuclear on Iran Deal Opponents

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259633/obama-goes-nuclear-iran-deal-opponents-daniel-greenfield

Republicans who oppose the deal will be tarred as traitors.

July 31, 2015

Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Obama has decided that two wildly unpopular policies, one foreign and one domestic, will be the final legacy of his wildly unpopular administration. The domestic policy is gun control. The foreign policy is Iranian nukes. While Americans will be disarmed, Iran will be getting ready for its ballistic missiles.

Ramming through wildly unpopular policies is what this administration does best. More than anything else, this administration will be remembered for the mix of bullying, smears, pop culture distractions, outright lies, bureaucratic sabotage and blatant lawbreaking with which it achieved its policy goals.

Iran is no different.

The sales pitch is going badly. John Kerry has probably managed to dissuade more senators by testifying than he would have if he had taken the fifth. A viral video featuring the Iran lobby’s Thomas Pickering lecturing failed movie star Jack Black on the importance of the deal earned all the wrong kind of laughs.

Too many Democrats are still sitting on the fence. Some have come out against the deal. So the White House is looking for weak points in a potential coalition against the deal.

Its opening move is a classical “Divide and Conquer” strategy that tries to split pro-Israel Democrats from Republicans. The Democrats are being told that a rejection of the deal means war with Iran. If they don’t back the deal, they will be warmongers. Those who oppose the deal with Iran will face the same anti-war coalition that targeted those Democrats who supported Bush’s overthrow of Saddam.
The deal is too unappealing to be sold on its merits, so it is instead being presented as the only alternative to a war. Obama and Kerry love nuance when it comes to finding all the positive sides to making deals with Iran or the Taliban, but quickly abandon it at home in favor of a polarized argument in which opponents of their latest terrorist appeasement are warmongers and traitors.

Jewish Democrats, in particular, are being told that Israel and Jews will be blamed for such a war.
John Kerry has already come out and said that Israel will be blamed. That’s nothing new for the Democratic Party. It wasn’t that long ago when Senator Hollings was claiming that Bush had invaded Iraq and passed tax cuts for the “Jewish vote”. To Jon Stewart, Obama referenced the Iraq War and suggested that the people against the deal “are not going to be making sacrifices” if there is a war.

That type of rhetoric sounded better coming from politicians who had served in the military, instead of a career community organizer who refers to a “Corpse-man” and uses Marines as umbrella stands.
Jewish Democrats who oppose the deal will be “Senator Lieberman-ed”, primaried by the left, smeared and added to the list of neo-con warmongers. Non-Jewish Democrats may be allowed a place at the table, like Kerry or Hillary, but only after they serve a penal term of appeasement as Secretary of State.

The Pollard release meanwhile begins the process of splitting Republicans from a pro-Israel coalition. The leverage is once again accusations of treason. Obama’s supporters showed where their argument was bound to end up when they spread the #47Traitors hashtag targeting Senators opposed to the deal.

Israel certainly hadn’t arranged for Pollard’s release. The administration isn’t being accommodating or trying to win over anyone. It’s calculatedly turning a former spy into a talking point during a debate involving Israel to add weight to the treason talking point.

Democrats who oppose the deal will be smeared as warmongers. Republicans who oppose it will be tarred as traitors.

Pollard’s shelf life as a talking point will be limited, but it won’t be hard to manufacture further scandals. An official here or there will be investigated for inappropriate contacts with Israeli officials or pro-Israel groups. The charges will fall apart on any real scrutiny, but the story will have achieved its results.

The last time the left wanted to kneecap pro-Israel opposition to Iran, it manufactured the Rosen-Weissman case targeting two AIPAC officials heavily involved in lobbying for sanctions on Iran. The case fell apart, but not before AIPAC offices had been raided and the media had written up a spy drama. But the real goal had been to link AIPAC to Feith, Wolfowitz and other Republican enemies of the left.

Now that the left controls the White House, it has even more leeway for its political witch hunts.
Reviving the Pollard case sends Republicans the message that national security and pro-Israel policies are a contradiction in terms. It also intimidates Jewish critics of the deal on both sides of the aisle. This is an administration that has used the IRS against its political opponents, including pro-Israel opponents like Z Street, and will not hesitate to use every arm of government against its domestic political enemies.

While the “Israel Lobby” is an incessant topic, the Iran lobby which, until Hagel’s resignation, controlled the offices of the Vice President, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense is a black topic. Just about every critic is passed off as a pawn of an Israeli or Jewish organization, but mentioning that Secretary of State John Kerry has an Iranian son-in-law with reported connections to Iran’s Foreign Minister is off limits.

Obama welcomed in people like Charles W. Freeman, a Chinese state oil company board member and apologists for PRC atrocities from Tiananmen Square to Tibet, and Hamas fan Robert Malley, who wouldn’t have passed a security check to be dogcatchers in a dogless town. But now suddenly everyone else will be held to standards that Obama’s people don’t recognize or abide by for themselves.

The White House and its allies define any opposition as treason. Unwilling to force Iran to abandon its nuclear program, they are instead going nuclear on opponents of the deal. If they can split up the burgeoning coalition in Congress against the deal with accusations of treason, their own treasonous efforts to let Iran go nuclear and force the United States out of the Middle East will succeed.
And even if the tactic alone doesn’t win the day, it’s still an effective distraction.

ObamaCare was even more unpopular than the Iran deal, but Obama and his media allies kept up a barrage of distractions, attacks, smears and publicity stunts. Pollard is another way to swallow up airtime with a counter-topic while keeping opponents off balance. If Obama can’t sell the deal on its merits, he can always keep shifting the conversation to keep opponents on the defensive.

Selling the Iran deal on its merits has failed. It’s now being sold as the only alternative to war. Obama and Kerry had insisted, “No deal is better than a bad deal”, but now argue that their bad deal is better than no deal. And they demand that critics of their deal take responsibility for the alternative.
The entire line of argument is an admission that the deal is indefensible. The only possible defense of it is an attack on critics. Some of these attacks are crude. Others are subtle. Some attack directly, while others induce doubt, apathy and division.

Right now the biggest threat to Obama is the possibility that enough Democrats will join Republicans in shutting the deal down. If that happens, one of Obama’s sunset policy agendas will die. Coming off a defeat on Iran will leave him in poor shape for a fight over gun control. It will hand him a major defeat and finish off his unilateral foreign policy of signing treaties and starting wars without Congress.

Obama will do anything to protect his legacy. And the fight has only begun.

Tags: Iran, nuclear deal, Obama

About Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
Read More

DHS: Calling Islamic Terrorism 'Islamic' Offends Muslims

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/072715-763698-homeland-security-chief-reveals-policy-to-downplay-islamic-role-in-terror.htm

681 Comments

07/27/2015 07:02 PM ET

Johnson: Islam "is about peace." View Enlarged Image

PC: After a Muslim terrorist gunned down unarmed Marines in Tennessee, the head of Homeland Security revealed a policy to downplay any Islamic role in such terror. The feds are now blindfolding each other on the threat.

Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson refuses to call Islamic terror "Islamic," arguing it's "critical" to refrain from the label in order to "build trust" among Muslims.

In jaw-dropping remarks Friday at Aspen Institute's annual security forum, Johnson said the government will call such attacks "violent extremism" over "Islamic terrorism" out of respect for the Muslim community.

The policy explains why the U.S. prosecutor and lead FBI investigator in the Chattanooga case still insist on calling Mohammad Abdulazeez a "homegrown violent extremist," though he blogged about his religious motivations for the attack, and he and his family attended a local mosque controlled by a terror-tied Islamic trust.

Johnson says that dismissing the religious dimension of the widening homegrown Islamic terror threat is part of a strategy to gain the "cooperation" of the Muslim community. He says that if officials called Islamic terrorism "Islamic," they'd "get nowhere."

Even the moderator was dumbfounded: "Isn't government denying the fundamental religious component of this kind of extremism by not using the word Islamic?" "I could not disagree more," Johnson retorted, arguing that Islam "is about peace."

Earth to Johnson: You already are "nowhere." The FBI director warns that he can't keep up with all the homegrown Muslim terrorism cases cropping up now in all 50 states. Chattanooga is just the latest tragic example of the FBI and DHS missing plots in the pipeline.

And what fruit has pandering to local Muslim leaders produced? U.S. Attorney Bill Killian helped dedicate Abdulazeez's mosque at its grand opening in 2012, even befriended its leader. Did Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga president Bassam Issa tip him off about Abdulazeez's radicalization? Did he stop him from driving down the street and opening fire on two military sites?

An internal PowerPoint document shows that mosque leaders were busy invoking the names of radical Muslim Brotherhood leaders to raise money for the mosque, leaders like Sheikh Qaradawi, who once issued a fatwa calling on Muslims to kill U.S. soldiers.

Instead of investigating the mosque and its leaders, the feds have stepped up their groveling.
The notion that Muslim leaders are helping us is totally bogus. In one Islamic State hot spot, Minneapolis, the local Muslim leaders are "cooperating" by demanding that the FBI release jailed IS terrorist suspects. In Boston, congregants of a mosque attended by the Boston marathon bombers are "cooperating" by holding fundraisers and rallies for convicted al-Qaida- and IS-tied terrorists.

Mosques and Massacres

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/mosques-and-massacres

William Kilpatrick

On June 26, Saif Rezgui walked on to a beach in Tunisia and opened fire on German, British, and Irish sunbathers in front of the Imperial Marhaba resort hotel, killing 39 and wounding dozens more. If various world leaders are to be believed, the massacre had nothing to do with Islam. In response to the attack which left thirty British citizens dead, Prime Minister David Cameron said the terrorism “is not in the name of Islam. Islam is a religion of peace.” A day later, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott assured the world that “what’s being done by Daesh [the Islamic State] has nothing to do with God, it has nothing to do with religion.”

There was one notable exception to the usual nothing-to-do-with-Islam mantra. Immediately after the attack, Tunisia’s prime minister, Habib Essid, ordered the closing of 80 mosques.

Of course, the leader of a 98 percent Muslim country can’t be expected to understand Islam nearly as well as the leaders of Britain and Australia. Nevertheless, Essid’s action provides food for thought.
Mosques, after all, do have something to do with Islam. “Some mosques continue to spread their propaganda and their venom to promote terrorism,” Essid reportedly said. “No mosque that does not conform to the law will be tolerated.”

According to a Reuters report, Rezgui was “a dedicated student from a stable family who enjoyed partying and practiced break dancing.” Until, that is, “he appeared to have come into contact with extremist preachers about six months ago.”

Where do you meet extremist preachers? In extremist mosques, of course—the same sort of places attended by the two terrorists who two months previously had killed 21 foreign tourists at the Bardo Museum in Tunis. According to Reuters, “the two Bardo gunmen were also radicalized in their local mosques by hardliners.”

Another indication that the beach massacre might have had something to do with Islam is that Rezgui only targeted foreigners. As he pursued the tourists, he shouted to Tunisians to “get out of the way.” Might that have had something to do with the fact that the Tunisians were likely to be Muslims and the tourists were likely not? One other confirmation of the religious motivation for the attack came from the Islamic State. A spokesman for IS praised the attack as an operation against a “bordello”—a reference to the immodest dress of the beachgoers. Apparently, cartoons of Muhammad are not the only thing that hardline Muslims consider as provocation sufficient to warrant murder.

Not all mosques are centers of extremist radicalization. On the other hand, it’s likely that the average Westerner grossly underestimates the percentage of radical mosques. Fr. Samir Khalil Samir, an Egyptian Jesuit who is also an expert on Islam, writes:

In many Muslim countries … the mosques are monitored by the police on Friday. There is a simple reason for this: many political decisions start from the mosque during the Friday khutba [sermon]. Historians of Islam know that many riots and revolutions were launched from the mosques and that jihad is often proclaimed during the khutba.

Not coincidentally, many of the Arab Spring demonstrations in 2011 were set in motion from mosques following Friday prayers. And again, it’s probably no coincidence that Rezgui scheduled his massacre for a Friday during the holy month of Ramadan.

It’s tempting to think that the mosque-mayhem connection is something that’s peculiar to Arab societies, but four separate studies of American mosques revealed that about eighty percent of them provide extremist literature and occasionally feature extremist preachers. While this doesn’t mean that every American mosque is a hotbed of terrorism, it does suggest cause for concern. For example, two very prominent American mosques which have long been thought to be of the moderate mainstream kind are now known to be connected with numerous terrorists, some of them of the high-profile variety. Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood jihadist, was mentored at the Dar Al-Hijra Mosque in Falls Church, Virginia. So were three of the 9/11 hijackers. And the person who was mentoring them was Anwar Al-Awlaki, who later became one of the chiefs of operations for Al-Qaeda in Yemen. Meanwhile, the Islamic Society of Boston has two mosques (one in Boston and one in Cambridge) which were attended by the Tsarnaev brothers and nearly a dozen other known terrorists, including the founder of Boston’s Islamic society, Abduraham Alamoudi, who is currently serving a twenty-three-year prison term for terror-related activities.

Christians assume that mosques, like churches, are simply places of prayer. Many of them are, but many mosques are also places of recruitment and radicalization—staging areas for jihad. Subsequent to the beach massacre, weapons caches were found in forty Tunisian mosques. As a popular Muslim poem puts it, “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets, and the faithful our soldiers.”

Not all Muslims think of mosques in this way, but as Prime Minister Essid understands, a not insignificant number do. He is not alone in this assessment. As Fr. Samir notes, Muslim governments have historically kept a close eye on mosque activities. Muslim leaders may give lip service to the notion that violence has nothing to do with Islam, but their actions tell a different story. Western leaders need to start paying attention.

Tagged as David Cameron, Islamic Jihad, Radical Islam, Samir Khalil Samir SJ, Terrorism, Tunisia

Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on stumbleupon Share on print More Sharing Services 137

By William Kilpatrick

William Kilpatrick taught for many years at Boston College. He is the author of several books about cultural and religious issues, including Psychological Seduction; Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong; and Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West. His articles have appeared in numerous publications, including Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register, Aleteia, Saint Austin Review, Investor’s Business Daily, and First Things. His work is supported in part by the Shillman Foundation. For more on his work and writings, visit his website, turningpointproject.com

Female Circumcision Is Becoming More Popular in Malaysia

http://www.vice.com/read/female-circumcision-is-becoming-more-popular-in-malaysia

February 20, 2015

By Marta Kasztelan

I meet 19-year-old Syahiera Atika at the mall. She spends most Sundays prowling Kuala Lumpur's mega malls like other women her age, but as she eagerly points out she's also different. Syahiera is a modern incarnation of Malay culture: She happily embraces Western-style capitalism, while at the same time strictly following the local interpretation of Islam. And as she proudly informs me, that also means she's circumcised.

19 year-old Syahiera Atika (center), poses with her friends in front of a Kuala Lumpur mall

"I'm circumcised because it is required by Islam," she says. The Malay word she uses is wajib, meaning any religious duty commanded by Allah. Syahiera is aware of how female circumcision is perceived in the West, but rejects any notion that it's inhumane. "I don't think the way we do it here is harmful," she says. "It protects young girls from premarital sex as it is supposed to lower their sex drive. But I am not sure it always works." She giggles at this thought.

Female circumcision, as you may know, involves surgically removing part or all of a woman's clitoris, which is classified as Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) by the World Health Organization.

FGM has no medical benefits whatsoever, and a WHO fact sheet says that it "reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes, and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women." In 2012 the United Nations General Assembly unanimously passed a resolution calling it a "human rights violation" and urged nations to ban the practice.

A mother and daughter stand in the waiting room at the private Global Ikhwan clinic. Women from all over the region visit the Islamic clinic where FGM is performed regularly

Regardless of how cruel FGM is, the majority of Muslim women in Malaysia are, like Syahiera,

circumcised. A 2012 study conducted by Dr. Maznah Dahlui, an associate professor at the University of Malaya's Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, found that 93 percent of Muslim women surveyed had been circumcised. Dahlui also discovered that the procedure is increasingly performed by trained medical professionals in private clinics, instead of by traditional circumcision practitioners called Ma Bidans.

Dahlui insists Malaysia's version of female circumcision is less invasive than some types practiced around the world—she says it involves a needle prick to the clitoral hood and is performed on girls between the ages of one and six. However, as I discovered, more invasive procedures are also widespread.

Obstetrician and gynecologist Dr. Mighilia of the Global Ikhwan private clinic located in Rawang, north of Kuala Lumpur, admitted that she performs a more drastic version with a needle or scissors. "I just take a needle and slit off the top of the clitoris, but it is very little," she said. "Just one millimeter."

Dr. Mighilia demonstrates how she performs female circumcisions with scissors

Genital mutilation isn't banned in Malaysia, although public hospitals are prevented from performing the surgery. In 2009 the Fatwa Committee of Malaysia's National Council of Islamic Religious Affairs ruled that female circumcision was obligatory for all Muslim women, unless it was harmful.

That's not to say, however, that all Malaysians support it. Syarifatul Adibah, who is the Senior Programme Officer at Sisters in Islam, a local women's rights group, insists that sunat (Malaysian for circumcision) isn't once mentioned in the Quran. Instead she points to its popularity as stemming from an increasingly conservative interpretation of Islam.

"Previously it was a cultural practice, but now, because of Islamization, people just relate everything to Islam," she said. "And when you link something to religion, people here follow it blindly."

According to Adibah, FGM became more socially acceptable in 2012, when the Ministry of Health announced it was developing guidelines to reclassify the procedure as medical. To her, this misleads people into thinking mutilation is medically sound. "If you come up with the guidelines and you medicalize it this means you're OK with it, despite it having no medical benefit," she said. (The Ministry of Health did not respond to multiple requests for comment.)

Not that the "medicalization" of female genital mutilation is unique to Malaysia—the practice was recently identified as a new "disturbing trend" by the UNFPA, UNICEF, the International Confederation of Midwives, and the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

But some Malaysians believe that international organizations like those shouldn't be telling them how to live. "The problem with the West is that it's just so judgmental," said Abdul Khan Rashid, a professor at Penang Medical College. "Who the hell are you to tell us what to practice and what not to practice? A lot of women now do it in private clinics in safe conditions, but if you're going to make it illegal, the practice will just go underground."

Dr. Ariza Mohamed is a prominent member of the Islamic Medical Association of Malaysia, which condones "Holistic medicine based on Islam"

Malaysian medical practitioners also defend the practice by passing judgment onto other countries. "We are very much against what is going on in other countries like Sudan," said Dr. Ariza Mohamed, an obstetrician and gynecologist at KPJ Ampang Puteri Specialist Hospital in Kuala Lumpur. "That is very different from what we practice in Malaysia," she added. "And there is a big difference between circumcision and female genital mutilation."

Photos by Thomas Cristofoletti

Judge Jeanine: Is President Obama delusional?

Calais crisis: Now mayor demands Britain pay her town £35million in compensation

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/595032/Calais-mayor-Natacha-Bouchart-eurotunnel

THE mayor of Calais has demanded Britain pays £35million in compensation for causing the migrant crisis in her town.

By Giles Sheldrick

PUBLISHED: 00:01, Fri, Jul 31, 2015 | UPDATED: 09:37, Fri, Jul 31, 2015

GETTY

Mayor of Calais, Natacha Bouchart

Natacha Bouchart blames the UK's soft-touch benefits culture for creating an "El Dorado" for desperate refugees.

The politician will now fire off an invoice to the Government claiming recompense for "15 years of economic woes" at the French port.

She said: "I will demand 50million euros for 15 years of economic losses. I am citing the figure 50million...I could have said 10 or 20.

"But the true nature of the problem is that the English are ready to pay Eurotunnel 10million euros to ensure the security of their frontier.

"Calais is suffering in terms of its image, its tourism and consequently in economic terms."

Last year Home Secretary Theresa May promised to give France £12million to tighten security in Calais after 250 migrants stormed the ferry terminal.

The UK also offered 11-miles of high security fencing used during the Nato summit in South Wales.

But Ms Bouchart blames the lure of an easy life in Britain for the growing army of refugees camped out in her town.

Ukip MEP Steven Woolfe said: "If you wanted a greedy example of hands thrust out to claim taxpayers' money as a result of the Calais crisis the local politicians in the port town would be somewhere at the top of the list.

The words 'Le bloody cheek' come to mind in this latest desperate plea for damages.

"Since Britain has neither any control over how these migrants make it into France then all the way up to Calais nor for the security situation in the town once they get there such a claim is worthless.

I will demand 50million euros for 15 years of economic losses. I am citing the figure 50million...I could have said 10 or 20

Natacha Bouchart, mayor of Calais

"Lorry operators from across Europe and British tourists alike are starting to make plans to avoid Calais - a trend likely to accelerate unless the authorities stop whining and get their act together to ensure free and efficient movement of goods and people through their biggest asset."

Earlier this year Ms Bouchart said she would do "everything" in her power to wriggle out of the treaty that moved the UK border to Calais.

She is prepared to spark a major diplomatic row by pulling out of Le Touquet Treaty.

The deal, signed in 2003, allows British border security to be stationed at ferry terminals in France.

If she succeeds in scrapping it, thousands would be free to cross the English Channel raising the spectre of squalid migrant camps dotted along the south coast of England.

Calais Deputy Mayor Philippe Mignonet said: "If we have to force the British Government to transfer the border back to Dover and Folkestone we will do it. We have to renegotiate Le Touquet because nothing has changed.

Natacha will do everything she can to move the border back. You can build a wall around England, but it won't change anything.

"Migrants don't fall from the sky - they arrive in Calais to get to England."

Ms Bouchart said: "Calais is a hostage to the British. The migrants come here to get to Britain. The situation here is barely manageable. The UK border should be moved from Calais to the English side of the Channel because we're not here to do their jobs."

A Home Office spokesman said: "We continue to work closely with the French government and Eurotunnel to tackle the immediate pressures and longer term issues involved in the situation in northern France.

"We committed £12million to improving security at Calais last September, a further £1.4million to set up a secure lorry park in Calais earlier this month and up to £7million to increase security at Coquelles — and the French have provided an extra 120 police this week.

"This week the Home Secretary and French Interior Minister met to discuss the situation and our wider collaboration to resolve the migration pressures in the Mediterranean. We will continue to work together to find practical solutions to these issues.”

Britain 'xenophobic' to demand economic migrants kept out, says UN

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11773836/Britain-xenophobic-to-demand-economic-migrants-kept-out-says-UN.html

Peter Sutherland, the UN Secretary General’s special representative on international migration, says the British reaction to the Calais crisis is “grossly excessive”

Migrants run past a policeman at the Eurotunnel site in Calais on Wednesday night (AFP) Photo: AFP

By Ben Farmer

4:27PM BST 30 Jul 2015

Demands to keep economic migrants out of Britain are xenophobic a senior United Nations official has said as he attacked the UK’s response to the Calais crisis.

Peter Sutherland, the UN Secretary General’s special representative on international migration, said the British reaction to the crisis was “grossly excessive”.

The great majority of migrants heading to Europe are genuine refugees, he said, and Britain receives far fewer applications for sanctuary than other European countries.

He said calls to stop economic migrants entering the UK are "a xenophobic response to the issue of free movement".

He told the BBC: "In my opinion, the debate in the UK is grossly excessive in terms of Calais. We are talking here about a number of people – a relatively small number in the context of what other countries are having to do – who are in terrible conditions and have to be dealt with by France and/or Britain."

Thousands making the perilous boat voyage across the Mediterranean to reach southern Europe are "in the main" genuine refugees fleeing violence and persecution, he said.

Britain also receives far fewer asylum applications that other European countries, he said.
“Germany last year received 175,000 asylum applications. Britain received 24,000," said Mr Sutherland.

^{Migrants face police officers as they attempt to access the Channel Tunnel, in Calais (AP)}
David Cameron has faced criticism for referring to the thousands of migrants who are camped in Calais trying to get across the Channel as a “swarm”.

Mr Sutherland said: "I think it is most unfortunate to create an image of hordes of people, when in reality the highest figure I have seen for the actual numbers in the so-called 'jungle' around Calais – the place where these unfortunate people are living – is 10,000."

Kevin Hurley, police and crime commissioner for Surrey, earlier this week called for the 2nd Bn Royal Gurkha Rifles based just outside Hythe, Kent, to be deployed to make sure Britain’s border is secure.

^{French gendarmes try to stop migrants on the Eurotunnel site in Coquelles, near Calais (PHILIPPE HUGUEN/AFP)}
Mr Sutherland said: “The first thing we have to do collectively is to deal with their conditions. Instead of talking about sending Gurkhas or building fences, we should be thinking of the humanitarian crisis."

Mr Sutherland urged the UK to join the common European approach to the migrant issue, warning: "Anybody who thinks that by erecting borders or fences in some way a particular state can be protected from alleged 'floods' – which are anything but floods – of migrants is living in cloud cuckoo land."

Thursday, July 30, 2015

THURSDAY Security Update: Should John Kerry have recused himself from Iran negotiations?

Click below for today's....

NEW FSM POLL: Should John Kerry have recused himself from Iran negotiations?

by FSM NATIONAL SECURITY TEAM

The son of Mohammad Javad Zarif - John Kerry's Iranian counterpart in the nuclear negotiations - was best man at John Kerry's daughter's wedding two years ago, when she married an Iranian-American. With such intimate ties, should John Kerry have revealed this fact through full disclosure and recused himself from the negotiations?

You will NOT BELIEVE who was best man at John Kerry's daughter's wedding

by MICHELE HICKFORD

Secretary Kerry and Zarif first met over a decade ago at a dinner party hosted by George Soros at his Manhattan penthouse.

A Side Benefit to the Nuclear Agreement - a Vacation in the Islamic Republic of Iran

by DARLENE CASELLA

Anticipating a tsunami of foreign tourists, Vice President Masoud Soltanifar is easing visa requirements.

IRS Produces Recovered Lerner Emails

by JUDICIAL WATCH

The developments come in Judicial Watch's FOIA lawsuit seeking documents about the Obama IRS' targeting and harassment of Tea Party and conservative opponents of President Obama.

What Obama is allowing to happen to our allies against ISIS is DISGRACEFUL

by LTC ALLEN WEST (US ARMY RET)

And now we know exactly what the country of Turkey is up to.

The Guantanamo Non-Answer That Says a Whole Lot

by BEN LERNER

...There are currently 116 detainees at the facility, and under the new plan some of them would be moved to the U.S.

Illegal Immigrants Outnumber Unemployed Americans

11.3 million illegal immigrants in U.S.

Don't miss out on the latest

· Greg Gutfeld DESTROYS Liberal in Favor of Harvesting Aborted Baby Parts
· ‘Absolutely Astounding' that Moniz Hasn't Seen Iran Side Agreements
· Defense Secretary Ashton Carter: "No Reason To Forsee" Iran Changing Behavior After Deal
· Senators grill IRS commissioner over targeting of conservative groups
· Ohio crime spree sparks debate about illegal immigration (The Kelly File)

REMINDER: Please "like" our Facebook page:

and

Don't forget to share some tweets!

As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, The Family Security Foundation relies upon the thoughtfulness and (tax-deductible!) generosity of visitors like you.

PLEASE CLICK HERE TO SEND YOUR 100% TAX-DEDUCTIBLE DONATION TO FAMILYSECURITYMATTERS.ORG