Assad Confirms Jihad Militia That Killed Chris Stevens Now In U.S. Refugee Population
Feb 10, 2017
Fed 10, 2017 by
While certainly beginning to wane by 1986, the Cold War was still much a reality. Both the United States and their arch enemy, the Soviet Union, lived with the reality that the other had weapons so destructive that neither side’s leader likely slept very soundly at night. Still, something really telling happened that year. The Soviet-American relationship was about to take a turn.
The Chernobyl Power Station suffered what was, at that time, the worst nuclear mishap to ever happen. After Mayak in Russia (which had been the worst disaster of its kind prior) had decimated the U.S.S.R. only about thirty years prior, Ronald Reagan said, “The United States is prepared to make available to the Soviet Union humanitarian and technical assistance dealing with this accident.”
He added that America was looking to gain,” information on the accident and request the closest possible coordinated effort among all concerned countries.” Lastly, Reagan also added that “To minimize the danger, we hope the Soviet Union will fulfill its international obligations to provide information on the accident in a timely manner.”
This was said to a communist country that wanted to destroy us, but this did not just happen once. When (also in 1986) the Space Shuttle Challenger erupted into a ball of fire, fell from the purple sky, and killed everyone on board (including the first civilian in space for America) on live television, a Soviet Embassy spokesman said, “On behalf of the embassy, I express deep condolences and sympathy to the American people in connection with this enormous tragic accident involving the shuttle Challenger.”
Regular citizens were too full of sorrow in Russia, with even common office workers saying “I think it’s very sad. Any human losses in this field, whether in the Soviet Union or America, are a tragedy. Space exploration is a risky business, but such crashes are a small tragedy for mankind.”
That kind of kinship towards one’s enemies is not totally absent today from the human the spirit to the degree that many of us have feared. Syria’s embattled president, Bashar Assad, is trying with great passion and convincing demeanor to warn everyone in every nation that is taking in refugees fleeing the war that has befallen his nation to beware of the terrorists that he warns are”definitely” mingled into the mix.
We know already that Ambassador Stevens made repeated requests for help and back up and was ignored. It seems that he and only one other person were all that stood between him and the people who were working to bringing in heavy weapons to Syria from Libya. This means that Assad is perfectly correct about not only the terrorist threat, but that America’s top brass may have actually allowed Stevens to be murdered. HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN LEFT TO DIE ON PURPOSE TO HIDE WHAT HE KNEW.
In an interview with Yahoo News, Assad was asked if he thought, since he was certain that terrorist elements were involved, whether or not he felt that Trump or the protesters were correct about the travel ban. Assad chose to leave such matters to the people and leadership of the U.S. (a respect that much of the world has not shown him, including Obama’s America) saying only that, “is an American issue.”
He did go on with his point, however, by saying that the internet is full of factual reports that show not only articles and official documents outlining the fact of terrorist infiltration within refugees ranks, but also videos of the terrorists saying it for themselves.
One would expect Assad to laugh merrily as sharia practitioners who act more like swine than human beings sweep over his enemies and bring great sorrow to their societies, but surprisingly that is not his tone. Even when asked if there were a lot of terrorists mixed in, his answer was filled with prudence when he observed that it does not take a large number of such terrorists to inflict great harm. That said, he seemed to imply that the number was pretty high without coming right out and saying it.
“Those terrorists in Syria, holding the machine gun or killing people, they [appear as] peaceful refugees in Europe or in the West,” said the Syrian president. He added that rather than see his people spread all over the nations of the Earth that he would like to see them all come home. “For me, the priority is to bring those citizens to their country, not to help them immigrate.‘
Like most things that the mainstream media misses, this hidden nugget of information could be as (or even MORE) important than his reaffirmation that terrorists are hiding amongst the refugees, though his firsthand confirmation does help. The real gem is that he WANTS HIS PEOPLE HOME!
This means that Trump will likely have an ally in his quest to not have America awash with Syrians who are displaced due to a war that Bush helped to cause and that Obama helped to fund. It means that Trump’s repeated calls for a safe zone, followed by an eventual reunified Syria, followed by the whole of EU/U.S.A. not needing to take in any more people with the war over has official backing from the leader of the nation to whom an exodus affects most. This also means that Russia and the United States now have a common goal with all three parties agreeing if they are wise enough to make the deal. (That we all know, is Trump’s specialty, so this could be amazing news)
Assad, rather than portraying the mad butcher who gasses his own people (which is unlikely to have been the case), the soft-spoken Syrian leader declared that each nation needed to weigh the humanitarian cost with proper risk analysis. Some may argue that Assad is not someone to be trusted, that the Germans who studied the gas attack were wrong, and that Assad did gas his own people. If so, then let us reason still. Pretending that it is true, does his evil mean that he knows nothing of terror? Does it mean that his years of experience and Islamic background with expertise in knowing each nuance of each radical faction is now worthless because he is evil?
If Assad was saying, “let the West die from these terrorists,” or, “we will never accept those who fled home,” or ANYTHING that imply that he could benefit from lying then we could all write off his warnings and put his words under those of Kim Jung Un and simply have a good laugh. This is not the case. Assad seems to be saying that instead of lashing out at America and nations that spent billions to dethrone him and who almost went to war with Russia over it, that the West needs to act very carefully. It seems as if the old adage that says that the enemy of your enemy is your friend is simply not true in this case.
‘We’re going to see more’: Sanctuary cities cave in face of Trump’s funding threats
Feb 10, 2017 By Elizabeth Llorente
Several towns, cities and counties around the nation are caving to President Trump’s threat to pull funding, and abandoning their “sanctuary” pledges to shield illegal immigrants from federal authorities.
Dayton, Ohio, dropped a policy that restricted the city’s cooperation with immigration officials pursuing illegal immigrants arrested for misdemeanors or felony property crimes, according to the Dayton Daily News. Police Chief Richard Biehl said federal authorities will no longer be impeded by the city when pursuing illegal immigrants being held by his department.
Other communities that have dropped policies of shielding illegal immigrant suspects from Immigration and Customs Enforcement include Miami-Dade and Dayton, are Saratoga, N.Y., Finney County, Kan., and Bedford, Penn., according to The Center for Immigration Studies, which keeps a list of sanctuary communities.
“We are reviewing policy changes at a multitude of other jurisdictions as well,” said Marguerite Telford, CIS’s director of communications, who said the organization is “being inundated” by officials on its sanctuary map who want to be taken off.
The mayor of Miami-Dade County, which was considered a sanctuary community, made headlines recently when he changed a policy that called for refusing to hold arrested immigrants for immigration officials unless they committed to reimbursing the county for the cost of detention.
Telling reporters that he did not want to imperil hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding, Mayor Carlos Gimenez ordered jails to comply with federal immigration detention requests.
The changes have come on the heels of President Trump’s executive order giving the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security the power to cut federal funding to communities that are deemed sanctuaries for illegal immigrants. Trump also has authorized the DHS to publish a weekly list of sanctuary communities.
CIS, and other groups that favor strict immigration enforcement, laud Trump’s move.
“Are you really going to pick and choose what laws you’re going to enforce?” asked Telford. “If you want a change [in immigration policy], go to the legislature.”
While some communities are rethinking their sanctuary policies under the pressure of losing funding, public officials of others, particularly major cities, have vowed to defy Trump’s orders.
“We’re going to defend all of our people regardless of where they come from, regardless of their immigration status,” said Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York at a recent press conference.
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel also vowed to protect illegal immigrants, including ones suspected or convicted of crimes, from the feds.
“I want to be clear: We’re going to stay a sanctuary city,” Emanuel said. “There is no stranger among us… you are welcome in Chicago as you pursue the American dream.”
The “sanctuary” term describes cities that employ a range of uncooperation with federal immigration authorities. Some refuse to hold suspects and even convicts who have completed their sentences for the feds to deport. Others refuse to furnish the feds with information on illegal immigrants who land on their radar through more benign activity.
Forbes contributor Adam Andrzejewski reported that more than 300 government jurisdictions claim to be sanctuaries, of which 106 are cities and “the rest are states, counties or other units of government.”
Supporters of sanctuary communities say that people who are here illegally but have not posed a danger to others or had trouble with police should not be turned over to immigration authorities.
Some police and town officials further argue that working with immigration officials will make people fearful of turning to them if they are the victim of a crime or have information about one.
“It’s incredibly disappointing to see cities and counties scaling back so-called “sanctuary” policies, which were largely adopted to further public safety and ensure immigrants weren’t afraid to call the police,” Grace Meng, a senior researcher with Human Rights Watch, told Fox News.
Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, predicted many more communities will be dropping or dramatically modifying their sanctuary stances.
“We’re going to see more of this,” Mehlman told Fox News. “Faced with the possibility of losing federal dollars, they’ll choose to keep funding public services rather than protecting illegal aliens.”
Elizabeth Llorente is Senior Reporter for FoxNews.com, and can be reached at Elizabeth.Llorente@Foxnews.com. Follow her on https://twitter.com/Liz_Llorente