A Catholic priest, alongside 200 other Christians, were just recently kidnapped by ISIS in Mindanao. According to one report:
A Catholic priest who was taken hostage by militants linked to the Islamic State group says he’s being held alongside 200 other captives, including children, in what appeared to be a battle-scarred part of a southern Philippine city.
In a video apparently taken under duress by militants, Father Teresito Suganob said his captors wanted the military to withdraw its forces from Marawi, where Islamic militants still hold pockets of territory after a week of gunbattles with the army.
A colleague of Suganob confirmed to The Associated Press that the man in the video is the priest. It was not clear when the video was taken or who released it online, and whether Suganob believed what he was saying or was forced to say it.
“We want to live another day, we want to live another month,” Suganob said, standing in front of debris and partially burned buildings. Directing his remarks to Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, he said, “We want to live few years and in your generosity, Mr. President, in your heart, we know you can make something (happen).”
The United States government refused to help the Philippines fight Islamic insurgents, who have allegiance with ISIS, in Mindanao, where they recently took the city of Marawi, making the Philippines the first East Asian country that has had to deal with an ISIS takeover of a city. Marawi is becoming another Mosul, with tens of thousands of people having already fled the city.
The US government, last year, refused to send the Philippines arms to fight terrorists, for supposed human rights violations that they have accused the Filipino government of doing. This is quite strange, given the fact that the Trump administration just recently approved of a $110 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia, a nation that has utterly no religious freedom in that country.
“ISIS has established a base in my country, down south. And we are fighting terrorism just like any country and we need arms,” Duterte stated. “And suddenly, two senators of the U.S. Congress said they will not proceed with the exportation. And I said no problem, I can always go to China or Russia.” On account of the US’ refusal to help the Filipinos, President Rodrigo Duterte is now going to China and Russia to give his military the weapons needed to combat ISIS in Mindanao. As Duterte said:
“I have nothing against America. They’re perfectly alright. Trump is my friend. But my foreign policy has shifted from the pro-Wester one. I am now working on an alliance with China and I hope to start a good working relationship with Russia. Why? Because the Western world, the EU and everything, its all this double-talk.”
Duterte also lamented:
“… Its only Russia and China that can be relied on with their words. America is double-talk. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. Because I said the arms are suspended and the Senate has not really greed, or is still debating on it, whether to give us the arms or not. My country is fighting terrorism. How long can I wait. How long can I wait? Until time as we are on bended knees? It might be too late.”
He also said:
“Russia sells arms. She does not impose any conditions. When Russia sells the arms and she sells the arms — if you need it, I will give it to you. … Can you do that with America? No, because the president says he will give you, and the State Department says no. And the US Congress says no, human rights violations and so on”.
Duterte also expressed his fear that he could be a target of the CIA:
“… if I survive the CIA, I still have five years to go.”
This should be a real concern, given the fact that the US government murdered Saddam and Gaddafi, whose deaths have led to the utter anarchy in both Iraq and Libya. Is it possible that the US government is facilitating the violence in Mindanao? Its entirely possible, given all of the fundamentalist elements that the US could use to cause instability in the region.
“What’s happening in Mindanao is no longer a rebellion of Filipino citizens,” Solicitor General Jose Calida told a news conference. “It has transmogrified into invasion by foreign terrorists, who heeded the call of the ISIS to go to the Philippines if they find difficulty in going to Iraq and Syria,” he said, using the acronym for Islamic State. Duterte, in a speech to the military, spoke of Caucasian people entering the Philippines and percolating jihadist ideology. There is obvious foreign influence in this conflict. The CIA financed the Taliban, they also backed the Muslim terrorists who murdered Gaddafi, and the Americans are currently supporting the “rebels” in Syria to overthrow Assad.
Why is the US backing up jihadist rebels in Syria? To remove any preponderating Russian influence in that country. Duterte is getting close to China and Russia, and it would make sense that the US would want to support the jihadist cause in the Philippines as a means of punishment and neutralizing Russian and Chinese political leverage. Why are the Americans supporting Japan? Because they want to use Japan against Russia and China. Why did the Americans take down the Berlin Wall? To strengthen Germany against Russia.
So, I am suspecting Western influence in the Mindanao conflict.
The Vietnam War was made possible when the US denied help to Vietnam, after WW II, who then went to Russia and China for help. Some of my friends never came home from the Vietnam War.
33 States Have Legislation to Fight Illegal Immigration and End Sanctuary Cities
June 2, 2017 by Warren Mass
Starting with Texas, where Governor Greg Abbott signed a bill (Senate Bill 4) on May 7 banning sanctuary cities, at least 33 states have introduced immigration enforcement bills since Donald Trump assumed the presidency in January. With the Trump administration’s pursuit of much stricter immigration law enforcement than occurred under former president Obama, many states are eager to join the battle by passing laws requiring their cities and towns to cooperate with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials.
A May 25 report from the Washington, D.C.-based Migration Policy Institute noted that the Texas law, which takes effect on September 1, reflects the Trump administration’s immigration policies by penalizing so-called sanctuary jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
The Migration Policy Institute report observed that the Texas law — in addition to requiring local cooperation with ICE officials — also allows state and local law-enforcement officers to inquire into the immigration status of noncitizens who are detained or arrested, as well as that of victims or witnesses to crimes. The report noted that three lawsuits involving the Texas law have been filed, and the legal parallels with Arizona’s SB 1070 (key provisions of which were struck down the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Arizona) mean the outcome and fallout of the Arizona law will be carefully examined in the lawsuits involving the Texas law.
A report in the Washington Examiner on June 1 cited data from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), which noted that as of May 8, 2017, 24 states were considering anti-sanctuary bills and four had passed such legislation during their 2017 legislative sessions. (That number was lower than was reported by the Migration Policy Institute on May 25.)
“Georgia and Indiana enacted laws restricting postsecondary institutions from adopting sanctuary policies. Mississippi went a step further, prohibiting local jurisdictions and postsecondary institutions from adopting or maintaining sanctuary policies,” said NCSL. The organization’s statement continued:
The outcome of challenges to the new wave of state activism is difficult to predict. First, there is an altered legal reality. The challenge to [Arizona’s] SB 1070 was brought by the Obama administration, a situation unlikely to occur in the Trump administration against states seeking to mandate compliance with ICE or toughen penalties against illegal immigration. As a result, it is likely that all challenges to such state laws will instead be brought by private parties and by some local jurisdictions. The legal battles are also occurring in a time when the political climate on immigration enforcement at the federal level — and in many states — has hardened. However, many courts have also shown resistance to upholding the President’s actions on immigration, which may influence at least some as they grapple with this latest set of state activity.
The “hardening” of the political climate on immigration was reflected in the voters’ election of Trump, since taking a tough stance on immigration was a key part of his campaign. Trump’s selection of former Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions — who was the Senate’s leading advocate of tougher immigration enforcement — as attorney general, indicated that the new president’s commitment to enforcing immigration law was more than just campaign rhetoric. Since a majority of the American public supported tougher immigration enforcement by their choice in the presidential election, it is natural that this sentiment would be reflected at the state level, as well. As the report stated, it has been mostly courts that have shown resistance to upholding the president’s actions on immigration. The challenges from “private parties” and “local jurisdictions” noted in the article, as one might expect, have come primarily from liberal activist groups and cities known for their liberalism.
We observed in our article for May 9, reporting about Abbott’s signing of Senate Bill 4 into law, that the law will make sheriffs, constables, police chiefs, and other local law-enforcement officials subject to Class A misdemeanor charges if they don’t cooperate with federal authorities and honor “detainer” requests from immigration agents to hold noncitizen inmates who are subject to deportation. The law also applies to police at Texas public colleges.
“Texas has now banned sanctuary cities in the Lone Star State,” Abbott said in a video of his signing posted on Facebook. Abbott defended the constitutionality of the law after signing it, saying key parts of it have “already been tested at the United States Supreme Court and approved there.”
Texas Senator Ted Cruz posted the following message on Facebook after the signing:
Governor Greg Abbott yesterday sent a clear message that defiance of our laws in Texas will no longer be tolerated.
I commend the Governor for signing into law this ban on sanctuary cities and the members of the Texas Legislature — especially Reps. Charlie Geren and Paul Workman and Senator Charles Perry — for their leadership in sponsoring this measure.
As we observed in our report on the passing of this strong immigration law in Texas, it will be interesting to see if this new legislation is the end of the matter, or (as has often been the case with similar laws and orders) it faces legal challenges in lawsuits such as those filed by activist organizations such as the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) or rulings by liberal judges.