Feds: Western New York Man Attempted to Support ISIS Group

I view Muslims no differently than the Japs and Nazis of World War II.

 If this guy wasn't born here and they saw his name was Arafat Nagi wouldn't you think it would raise a red flag before allowing him into the country? They could paste on their forehead:

 [I am a Terrorist] 

and they would still let them in.

 Lackawanna NY must be the breeding ground for terrorists. Anyone remember the Lackawanna 6? 

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?complete_911_timeline_al_qaeda_by_region=complete_911_timeline__lackawanna_six_&timeline=complete_911_timeline

The Lackawanna Six. Top row, from left: Faysal Galab, Mukhtar al-Bakri, and Sahim Alwan. Bottom row, from left: Yahya Goba, Shafel Mosed, and Yaseinn Taher.

Virtually indistinguishable from any other American right?

-------------------------------------------

BUFFALO, N.Y. — Authorities in western New York say they've arrested a 44-year-old man on a charge of attempting to support the Islamic State group.

U.S. Attorney William Hochul (HOH'-kuhl) said at a news conference Wednesday morning in Buffalo that authorities were tipped off by a resident who heard Arafat Nagi (NAH'-gee) talking about his jihadi beliefs.

Nagi is due in court later Wednesday to face a charge of attempting to support a terrorist organization. Authorities say his social media posts and travel records were checked out as part of the investigation.

Hochul says Nagi traveled twice to Turkey within the past three years with the intention of joining the Islamic State group. He says Nagi purchased military combat gear, including night-vision goggles.

Police executed a search warrant Wednesday morning at Nagi's home in the city of Lackawanna.

Feds: Western New York Man Attempted to Support ISIS Group

The slippery slope

Seattle officials join push for Sharia-compliant mortgages, loans

This is just plain wrong on so may levels. No matter who you are, no matter what your ethnicity, you have to pay interest on a home mortgage loan. But not the Muslims! The Koran prohibits the payment of interest. This sets a precedent for Sharia Law allowing them to get a foot in the door the last thing this country needs. Are these Seattle officials out of the fucking minds? Does anyone in Seattle have the guts to say...We don't give a damn about Sharia Law these are the laws of the good old US of A! Why do they always cave in to the scourge of Islam?

And check out how this 'bending over backwards' policy is supposed to work. 

(highlighted below)

I'm sure it'll work without a hitch.

The banks never get screwed but there are some unanswered questions. Does the bank buy the home for the appraised value? What about a 20/25% down payment? Or is that against Sharia Law too? The profit margin is already figured in. Anyone ever here of 'underwater mortgages'? Sharia Law also states it's okay to lie and cheat an Infidel as long as it advances the cause of Islam.

BTW...If one refuses to bake a cake for gays because of religious convictions they're chastised and nailed to the cross. But a Muslim who doesn't want to pay interest on a loan because of his...no problem.. we'll work around it. 

CAIR (Council on American–Islamic Relations) issued the following statement:

"In a show of gratitude to our liberal friends in Seattle we are today announcing same sex marriages be performed at all our mosques throughout the country on a first come first served basis." 

-----------------------------------

Seattle debates Sharia law-sanctioned housing 

WASHINGTON – A proposal in Seattle meant to increase homeownership among Muslims by offering financing compliant with strict Islamic law -- known as Sharia -- is gaining ground in the latest test for local leaders trying to accommodate diverse religious beliefs.

"We will work to develop new tools for Muslims who are prevented from using conventional mortgage products due to their religious beliefs," Seattle Mayor Ed Murray said during a press conference July 13. 

"Sharia," which comes from the Koran and means "the right path," prohibits the payment of interest -- the primary way lenders earn. Many of Seattle's 30,000 practicing Muslims, therefore, are hard-pressed to find Sharia-compliant financing options when buying homes, making large purchases or starting a business. 

A Seattle housing committee suggested community and business leaders find a way to help them, a push the mayor endorsed. Seattle is just the latest to explore financing options for devout Muslims -- following in the footsteps of Chicago. But the move to offer Sharia-compliant financial products has drawn fire. Critics have warned that it opens the nation's financial system to Islamic radicals and terror groups, providing a mechanism for money laundering.

In 2008, conservative lawmakers in Congress went after American International Group for offering Sharia-compliant insurance programs.

Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., and then-Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., sent AIG then-Chairman Edward Liddy a strongly worded letter that argued Sharia financing could be manipulated and used by terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and Hamas to launder money.

"You may defend your decision to offer Sharia products and will probably state that they have no real ties to Sharia law, and therefore pose no threat. You are wrong," the lawmakers wrote in the Dec. 18, 2008 letter. "Like Britain, the way to America's legal code is through its wallet, and if Sharia law gains a strong footing in the United States, it will be through Sharia finance and Sharia products."

The Thomas More Law Center, a nonprofit law firm that promotes conservative Christian values, sued then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and the Federal Reserve in 2008 over AIG's actions. The suit argued that it was unconstitutional for AIG to offer Sharia-compliant products because the federal government had bailed out AIG with $170 billion in taxpayer money, and that by promoting Sharia products, it forced Americans to comply with Sharia law. The suit failed.

Some also claim that adjusting existing regulations to benefit one group -- in this case, Muslims -- essentially is reverse discrimination.

Others, however, like Flip Pidot, CEO at American Civics Exchange, believe that loosening financial structures are "a step in the right direction toward a less fettered financial market."

He cautions that if this is a "special carve-out for those who claim Sharia-compliance or if it's in any way subsidized or otherwise made easier for a specific subset ... [the program] becomes more of a problem." But, Pidot told FoxNews.com's "Strategy Room," it's a good idea if this just removes a "barrier" and allows lenders to reach "an unmet section of the would-be homeowners."

A basic building block of Sharia-compliant financing is "murabaha," where "two parties agree to trade at a price equal to the cost plus mark-up or profit," Rice University professor Mahmoud Amin El-Garnal said in a 2014 Council on Foreign Relations report.

Here's how a Sharia-compliant sale might work between a bank and a Muslim homebuyer: The bank agrees to buy and hold clear title to the house, then enters into a contract to sell the house at an agreed-upon mark-up price that includes profit. The buyer agrees to pay the sale price in installments, or one lump sum. The markup rate is calculated to compete with prevailing interest rates, so the buyer's monthly payment is roughly equal to what a traditional lender might charge for a loan that combines principle and interest.

While Seattle leaders want more lenders taking part in the Sharia program, there are some already offering such unconventional financing. Seattle-based Halal Inc. advertises on its website that "instead of starting with a flawed system and trying to 'make a fit,' we took the perfect system ordained by Allah and created a legal framework for it." Multiple calls to Halal Inc. by FoxNews.com for comment were not returned.

The sector has grown to more than $1.6 trillion in assets worldwide over the past three decades. Analysts see the potential for even greater growth as the Muslim population grows in the U.S. and Europe, attracting the attention of other financial heavyweights like HSBC and Goldman Sachs.

"Global Islamic financial assets have soared from less than $600 billion in 2007 to more than $1.3 trillion in 2012, an expansion rooted in the growing pool of financial assets in Muslim-majority countries driven by consumer demand for products that comply with religious codes," according to the 2014 report by the Council on Foreign Relations.

The slippery slope

Congress Must Hold Obama Accountable for His Deception Over Iran

What Nixon did pales in comparison to Barry's scandals and crimes. Of all his "deeds" the IRS scandal and now the Iran deal are the most egregious and impeachable offenses. Why is it Nixon resigned (or would have been impeached) by Democrats who controlled both Houses of Congress throughout Nixon's presidency, yet now Republicans control both Houses they  can't even get the ball rolling yet? What the hell else has to happen?

I suggested Articles of Impeachment should have been filed 7-20-2015 and now the National Review agrees.

 Barry goes for an end around Congress...AGAIN 

---------------------------------------

by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY July 25, 2015 4:00 AM

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421600/obama-deserves-impeachment-iran

By lying and withholding information about the agreement, he gives aid and comfort to America’s enemy. 

The president “must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate.”

One can imagine hearing such counsel from a contemporary United States senator on the receiving end of President Obama’s “full disclosure” of the nuclear deal with Iran. But the admonition actually came from James Iredell, a champion of the Constitution’s ratification, who was later appointed to the Supreme Court by President George Washington.

Iredell was addressing the obligations the new Constitution imposed on the president in the arena of international affairs. Notwithstanding the chief executive’s broad powers to “regulate all intercourse with foreign powers,” it would be the president’s “duty to impart to the Senate every material intelligence he receives.” Indeed, among the most egregious offenses a president could commit would be fraudulently inducing senators “to enter into measures injurious to their country, and which they would not have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them.”

A little over a year ago, I recounted Iredell’s cautionary words in Faithless Execution. They echo an instructive illustration offered by James Madison, the Constitution’s principal author: If the president were “to commit any thing so atrocious” as to fraudulently rig Senate approval of an international agreement, he would “be impeached and convicted.”

RELATED: Is the Iran Deal the Worst Political Blunder of All Time?

Interestingly, the perfidy in Madison’s hypothetical involved summoning into session only senators favorably disposed toward a formal treaty that the president wanted approved. That was more plausible in the late 18th century: Under the Constitution, a treaty may be approved by “two thirds of the senators present” for the vote; and back then, senators coming from far and wide could not fly to the nation’s capital at the drop of a hat.

The hypothetical is telling as we consider Obama’s Iran deal. The Constitution makes treason a ground for impeachment, but it seems to have been outside Madison’s contemplation that a president would actually be so insidious as to use his foreign-affairs power to give aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States. On that score, note that as soon as Obama’s deal was announced, not only was Iran’s foreign minister vowing to continue funding jihadist terror; the regime’s “supreme leader,” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was also extolling the continued Iranian call for “Death to America.”

RELATED: Obama’s Iran Deal Is the Opposite of What He Promised the American People

Madison could not fathom a president who undermines the Constitution’s treaty requirements by the ruse of labeling a treaty an “agreement” or a “joint plan of action.” Still less could he imagine a president who resorts to chicanery in communicating the terms of an international agreement to the Congress. Such duplicity must have seemed inconceivable.

Yet now, it is not just conceivable. It is happening:





* Obama’s original stated commitment to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear-weapons power has deteriorated into a deal that enables Iran to become a nuclear-weapons power by abiding by the deal’s terms. The mullahs’ inevitable cheating will merely speed up matters; the outcome is already certain.

* Obama is willfully providing material support to the mullahs’ terrorism (a felony violation of federal law) — the deal will inject over $100 billion into Iran’s economy, and Iran brags that it will continue its open and notorious funding of Hezbollah and other anti-American, anti-Western, and anti-Israel “allies” (while the administration splutters that, gee whiz, curbing terrorism was not part of the negotiations).

* Obama not only lifts restrictions on Iran’s traffic in ballistic missiles and conventional weapons (which were also not supposed to be part of the negotiations) but also looks the other way while Russia sells the mullahs hundreds of sophisticated surface-to-air missiles — missiles that will be used against American forces when, inevitably, a future president decides to deal differently with our enemies.

* Obama’s deal, rationalized as necessary to delay (but no longer to forbid) Iran’s nuclearization, obliges the United States to protect Iranian nuclear facilities from sabotage — i.e., the deal makes America the scourge of erstwhile allies like Israel, with which we have colluded in impeding our actual enemy’s nuclear progress.

Yet, however shocking they may be, these acknowledged concessions do not fully convey the depth of the president’s betrayal. After a few days of misdirection, administration officials now admit that there are “side deals” that the administration has not revealed to Congress and does not intend to make public.

So far, we know of two “side deals” — who knows how many more there may actually be? As the Center for Security Policy’s Fred Fleitz writes in National Review, they involve (a) a full accounting of Iran’s prior nuclear activities (many of which are believed to have been in blatant violation of international law) and (b) access to the Parchin military base, where Iran has conducted explosive testing related to nuclear missiles.

Apropos of these subjects, recall that the administration repeatedly promised there would be no deal, that the president would walk away from the table, unless Iran agreed to a rigorous inspection regiment. Such a regiment minimally requires: (a) complete disclosure of the “possible military dimensions” of Iran’s past nuclear work, in order to establish a baseline for evaluating future conduct, and (b) the ability to conduct credible snap inspections of nuclear facilities.

RELATED: Obama: Witless or Willing?

Despite the administration’s chest-beating about these “red lines,” the Iranians remained alternatively coy and intransigent: When not lying about what cards they were willing to show, the mullahs insisted that Americans would not be permitted to snoop around their country and interfere in their military affairs.

Someone had to cave in, and — you could set your watch on it — that someone is Obama (if, that is, you are one of those who believed he was being honest in the first place). Thus the problem: how to cover up this decisive surrender within the surrender?

So, in his signature “if you like your health-care plan, you can keep your health-care plan” style, the president has come up with a fraudulent scheme: use the IAEA (the International Atomic Energy Agency) as a smokescreen. His administration now cynically claims that these critical agreement components — the rationale for lifting American sanctions on and making American commitments to the “Death to America” regime — actually have nothing to do with America . . . they are strictly between Tehran and the IAEA. Translation: Blame the IAEA, not Obama, for the abandonment of Obama’s core commitments.

RELATED: Obama’s Jihadist Stimulus Package

This would be laughable if it were not so offensive — and so perilous. Put aside that the Constitution does not permit the U.S. government to delegate American national security to anyone. The IAEA is not an independent actor. It is an international bureaucracy forged by the United States in the 1950s. Not only is the U.S. is a staple of its governing board; the American people underwrite over 25 percent of its budget. Furthermore, the IAEA reports to the United Nations (to which the American taxpayers’ contribution also far exceeds that of other countries) and, specifically, to the U.N. Security Council (of which the United States remains the dominant permanent member).

Now consider this: Under cover of this IAEA ruse, Obama ran to the Security Council and rammed through a resolution commencing implementation of his Iran deal before Congress or the American people could consider it. He thus undermined American sovereignty and the Constitution by scheming to impose an international-law fait accompli. And he thus undermined American national security by transferring his inspection commitments to an international agency that he knows is not close to being capable of executing them — an agency that will be further hampered by notice restrictions that, as Charles Krauthammer concludes, render the inspections “farcical” in any event.

The Constitution forbids providing aid and comfort to America’s enemies. And the Framers’ notion that a president would be punishable for deceiving Congress regarding the conduct of foreign affairs meant that lawmakers would be obliged to use their constitutional powers to protect the United States — not merely shriek on cable television as if they were powerless spectators.

Well?

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

Congress Must Hold Obama Accountable for His Deception Over Iran

Major Ice Age Extinctions Caused by Climate Change, Study Reveals

To me this climate change research team below just shot themselves in the foot.

The Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. During all that time the Earth's temperature has changed countless times. According to this study... "Wooly Mammoths are extinct because of severe climate change during the Ice Age." Did they bring about their own demise through excessive flatulence? As we all know long before Henry Ford and the Industrial Revolution came along we had climate change. Judging by their own study man bears no responsibility for the extinction of the Mammoth. Which makes the last sentence all the more remarkable. 

 "For humans today, the only blame of another major extinction will only be placed under our own responsibility."

So climate change is totally controlled by man when their own study shows the opposite.

http://www.pulseheadlines.com/major-ice-age-extinctions-caused-climate-change-study-reveals/3104/

-------------------------------------------------------------------

A research team from the University of Adelaide and the University of Wales, published a study that reveals that animals from ancient times, such as mammoths and giant sloths, are extinct because of climate change. Short and accelerated warming events recorded from the last glacial age are associated with major extinction of several species, even before the appearance of men.

This result offers a clear path towards understanding what may have caused these extinctions. The common debate between scientists was that some alleged that the direct cause was the “overkilling” of these animals by men; while others believe that it was a consequence of climate changes during the glacial age. Study suggests Wooly Mammoths are extinct because of severe climate change during the Ice Age.

The last glacial period, or Ice Age, goes from 110,000 to 11,650 years ago. It was commonly accepted that extinctions occurred during the cooling parts of climate cycles during this period. However, the new study demonstrates that faunal extinction happened mostly around warming events during the glacial period, specifically before and after the Last Glacial Maximum (from 23,000 to 19,000 years ago). These warming events are known as “Dansgaard-Oescheger events” or just D-O events.

D-O events, although highly investigated, are still not completely understood by specialists. What we know is that they happen nearly 25 times during the Ice Age and are characterized for being periodic climate oscillations. The events show a rapid warming that happened only in decades, followed by a cooling period. Then the cycle repeats. Nonetheless, paleoclimatologists are still uncertain of what causes D-O events.

Is important to understand that the results of the research not only explain the causes of these animals disappearance. It is also a clear warning for what the future holds for humanity. If in fact climate change affects in such magnitude animals of such sizes and resistance, this could mean a bigger danger to our current biodiversity. For humans today, the only blame of another major extinction will only be placed under our own responsibility.

Major Ice Age Extinctions Caused by Climate Change, Study Reveals

The Political Persecution Of Dinesh D'Souza

On a tip from Ed Kilbane

It’s the old double standard. Who can D’Souza turn to when the MSM has a deaf ear? 

Take my pal Edwards indicted on six felony charges of violating multiple federal campaign contribution laws to cover up an extramarital affair to which he admitted to. Edwards was found not guilty on one count, and the judge declared a mistrial on the remaining five charges. The Justice Department dropped the remaining charges and did not attempt to retry Edwards. The bastard never served a day in jail nor did he have “therapeutic counseling".

Same situation with Corzine when over a billion went missing at MF Global. And Killiary will skate on the emails.

-----------------------------------------------

Originally posted at Breitbart by Pamela Geller.

I am no D’Souza fan. One only need watch the debate between Dinesh D’Souza and Robert Spencer at CPAC 2007 to know where I am coming from, but that’s not the point. The idea that Dinesh D’Souza would be hounded and punished for something that Democrats do every day — that’s the point.

In my 2010 book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War On America, I gave the details of illegal contributions to the 2008 Obama campaign — from Hamas-controlled Gaza, no less. No one so much as batted an eye. But the idea that Dinesh D’Souza would have to undergo psychological examination for breaking the rules to support conservatives — that’s a new Stalinist mode of American politics.

Breitbart News reported in September 2014: “In addition to his five-year probation sentencing and eight months of confinement in a community confinement center — or restitution center, which will likely be completed in San Diego, California where D’Souza resides — Judge Berman ordered D’Souza to undergo ‘therapeutic counseling.'”

The idea that Dinesh would have to undergo psychological counseling is Maoist. It’s what Mao Zedong did to intellectuals and political dissidents in China. And as could have been predicted by anyone who is aware of how totalitarians have used psychology as a weapon, the psychological counseling hasn’t gone well. On Monday, Judge Berman “read aloud a report from a court-appointed psychologist who called D’Souza ‘arrogant’ and ‘intolerant of others’ feelings.'” This was in the context of Berman emphasizing that D’Souza had “to do eight hours each week for the entire five years he’s on probation and not just the eight months he was confined to a halfway house.”

Since when did being “arrogant and intolerant” — that according to a court-appointed psychologist — become a crime? The psychologist also claimed that “the client tends to deny problems and isn’t very introspective.” If that were a crime, Barack Obama should be serving a life sentence. If being arrogant and intolerant were a crime, you’d have to arrest the entire mainstream media.

Where is the outcry? Where is America? I don’t care if the enemedia isn’t writing about it. Where are decent Americans? It’s chilling. If Dinesh D’Souza is psychologically damaged in some serious way, so are millions of conservative Americans. And that’s the insidious point of his “therapeutic counseling.”

The persecution of Dinesh D’Souza is the latest manifestation of a disturbing new trend in American politics. After the Benghazi jihad attack on September 11, 2012, Hillary Clinton promised that the maker of the Muhammad film upon whom the Obama administration wrongly blamed the attack, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, would be arrested. And he was, on the flimsy pretense of a probation violation that was far less serious than comparable violations that U.S. courts and police ignore every day. Whatever the pretense, Nakoula was a political prisoner. He was jailed for blasphemy. And he remained the U.S.’s only political prisoner for a full year. If he hadn’t made the video, he wouldn’t have been in jail. The filmmaker was hunted down like an animal, and was in jail for trumped-up charges in an act of submission and surrender to Islamic law. This was a complete abridgement of our freedom of speech rights.

This was Obama sharia enforcement in America. Obama brought down the gavel on free speech at the UN when he said in the wake of the Benghazi attack, “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” Now we see, with the persecution of Dinesh D’Souza, that as far as the arrogant and intolerant autocrat in the White House is concerned, the future doesn’t belong to his political opponents, either.

In some Muslim countries, if you leave Islam, you risk being committed to an insane asylum. Is that what we are coming to in the United States? If you dissent from the dominant opinion, you will considered crazy and committed?

All charges against Dinesh D’Souza, and the ridiculous and insidious order that he undergo psychological counseling, should be dropped now — unless every Democrat who has skirted campaign finance laws is likewise prosecuted and persecuted.

The use of the legal system to persecute political opponents is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes. This is how low the Obama administration has sunk.

The Political Persecution Of Dinesh D'Souza