If Saudi Arabia won’t take in Syrian refugees, why should the United States? In recent weeks, we have heard a whole lot from Barack Obama about our “moral obligation” to take in refugees from Syria. Well, if there is a “moral obligation” to help these refugees, then why aren’t more wealthy Islamic nations stepping up to the plate? According to Amnesty International, since the beginning of the Syrian civil war Saudi Arabia has not accepted a single Syrian refugee. Neither has Kuwait. Neither has Qatar. Neither has the United Arab Emirates. These nations are absolutely swimming in money, and yet they have slammed the door on these desperately needy Islamic refugees. So what precisely does that tell us?When I first learned about this, I was quite upset. So much pressure is being put on the U.S, Europe and other wealthy nations to take in vast numbers of Syrian refugees, and yet the wealthiest Islamic nations in the Middle East are completely shunning them. The following comes from TruNews…
While the United States and Europe argue over how many Syrian refugees to allow in, the richest Persian Gulf states have accepted exactly zero.
The Muslim countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council that include Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and United Arab Emirates steadfastly refuse to accept any Syrian refugees. Amnesty International, USA (AIUSA) tells The Daily Caller News Foundation they have not accepted a single refugee since the armed Syrian conflict erupted years ago.
“The Gulf States have accepted zero refugees registered with the United Nations and administered through the U.N. resettlement program. They have accepted zero,” Geoffrey Mock, the Syrian country coordinator for AIUSA, tells TheDCNF.
To be honest, if people are leaving Syria because they want to get away from ISIS, then they probably wouldn’t want to go to Saudi Arabia.
Francois Hollande has come into his own. After nearly bankrupting France and raising taxes so aggressively that he has driven many of France’s best and brightest abroad, Hollande has found his voice as a wartime president. He is leading the charge against “terrorists” around the world.
US president Harry Truman admitted to failing at numerous professions before discovering his calling in politics and eventually being elevated to the highest office in the land after FDR’s untimely death. Truman immediately gave the order to murder hundreds of thousands of Japanese by dropping two horrible bombs on them and never looked back.
Today, the US mainstream media and its court historians deem Truman a heroic figure. So it may be with Hollande. France is drenched in blood and Hollande is determined to spill more. Not content with imposing an open-ended state of emergency on France, Hollande is now appealing to British Labour MPs to support bombing in Syria.
According to The Times, President Hollande “issued a dramatic appeal to British Labour MPs … to allow the UK to join the bombing campaign against Islamic State in Syria, further isolating Jeremy Corbyn, the party’s leader.”
Why hasn’t the U.S. bombed the oil wells that ISIS controls into oblivion by now? Would you believe that it is because the Obama administration “didn’t want to do environmental damage”? Former Deputy Director of the CIA Michael Morell has publicly admitted that we have purposely avoided damaging the main source of income for ISIS, and his explanation for why we were doing this is utterly bizarre. But at this point what could the Obama administration say that would actually make sense? Everyone now knows that ISIS has been making hundreds of millions of dollars selling oil in Turkey, and that this has been done with the full knowledge and complicity of the Obama White House. This is potentially the biggest scandal of the entire Obama presidency, and yet so far the Republicans have not jumped on it.If you or I even gave five bucks to ISIS, we would be arrested and hauled off to Guantanamo Bay. And yet Barack Obama is allowing ISIS to funnel massive quantities of oil through our NATO ally Turkey, and he is not doing anything to stop this from happening. It is a betrayal of the American people that is so vast that it is hard to put into words.
By now, virtually everyone on the entire planet knows exactly what is going on. For example, Iraq’s former National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie shared the following on his Facebook page on Saturday…
“First and foremost, the Turks help the militants sell stolen Iraqi and Syrian oil for $20 a barrel, which is half the market price.”
If it’s been deemed bad in other countries, that’s often when the United States comes in and welcomes it with open arms. In this case, we’re talking about the fact that a California judge recently dismissed two lawsuits that claimed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) illegally approved a harmful drug additive – ractopamine hydrochloride – used in animal feed.(1)
Indeed, despite having information about the weight gain inducing drug’s detrimental effects on animals, and that the active ingredient, found in the brand Paylean, is banned in 150 countries, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers turned a blind eye.(1)
FDA records revealed that pigs in particular have suffered horrific consequences from being given the drug, which is designed to make them gain weight without having to consume a great deal of feed. While cost effective for the farming industry, it’s been found to have rendered 160,000 pigs unable to walk, to experience hyperactivity and broken limbs, and even to die.(1)
In fact, a Food and Environment Reporting Network (FERN) investigation determined that ractopamine is fed to “an estimated 60 to 80 percent of pigs in the United States” and has “resulted in more reports of sickened or dead pigs than any other livestock drug on the market.” Over the years, farmers and veterinarians have repeatedly expressed concern over ailing pigs.(1)
The mainstream media’s investigators tried their level best to find something about Robert Lewis Dear (shown), the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooter who killed three and wounded nine in a five-hour stand-off that ended late Friday afternoon. Something — anything — that would support the agenda the media insist on promoting: that he was a protester at Planned Parenthood for killing babies and selling their body parts, that he was connected somehow with a right-wing wacko group with an anti-government agenda, or that he was representative of “gun nuts” so hated by the Left.
After hours of investigation, including conversations with neighbors in North and South Carolina, and in Hartsel, Colorado, where Dear lived, they came up with almost exactly nothing — which proves the point: No background check, no matter how rigorous, would have picked this guy up. But background checks are the solution, according to anti-gunners, including the president, who blamed the shooting on the weapon Dear was using instead of Dear himself. Obama said, “[Dear] opened fire with an assault weapon [that] forced fear upon … more Americans and their families.”
In March of 2002, Lynn Roberts, a neighbor of Dear’s in North Carolina while he was living in a small house with no electricity, reported that Dear had been “leering” at her and “making unwanted advancements to [her].” In July of that year she obtained a restraining order against him.
In November, 2002, Dear shot a neighbor’s dog with a pellet gun.
In September of 2004, Douglas Moore, another neighbor of Dear’s, reported to the police that Dear had threatened him, telling him that “he was going to do bodily harm to him because [Dear] thought that [Moore] had pushed his motorcycle over on the ground.”
“If we truly care about this – if we’re going to offer up our thoughts and prayers again, for God knows how many times, with a truly clean conscience – then we have to do something about the easy accessibility of weapons of war on our streets to people who have no business wielding them. Period. Enough is enough.” – Barack Obama
If you read all three of the articles listed above, you will get a picture of the outright deviousness of the “gun-control” fanatics; chief among them, Barack Obama. Obama spent many years in Chicago, and his former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, is now Mayor there. While Obama demands more gun control, the numbers of shootings and shooting deaths, in heavily gun-controlled Chicago, is insanely high. Obviously gun control limits gun deaths, right? Baloney. Criminals get guns, because they are criminals. A disarmed population is a criminal’s paradise. You know it, and I know it. While the gun-control freaks use every shooting death, it seems, to cry for more gun-control, more, and more Chicago residents die because of that very gun-control.
The interventionists will do anything to prevent Americans from seeing that their foreign policies are perpetuating terrorism and inspiring others to seek to harm us. The neocons know that when it is understood that blowback is real – that people seek to attack us not because we are good and free but because we bomb and occupy their countries – their stranglehold over foreign policy will begin to slip.
That is why each time there is an event like the killings in Paris earlier this month, they rush to the television stations to terrify Americans into agreeing to even more bombing, more occupation, more surveillance at home, and more curtailment of our civil liberties. They tell us we have to do it in order to fight terrorism, but their policies actually increase terrorism.
If that sounds harsh, consider the recently-released 2015 Global Terrorism Index report. The report shows that deaths from terrorism have increased dramatically over the last 15 years – a period coinciding with the “war on terrorism” that was supposed to end terrorism.
According to the latest report:
Terrorist activity increased by 80 per cent in 2014 to its highest recorded level. …The number of people who have died from terrorist activity has increased nine-fold since the year 2000.
The world’s two most deadly terrorist organizations, ISIS and Boko Haram, have achieved their prominence as a direct consequence of US interventions.
Barack Obama delivered his version of a fireside chat last week with an inelegant, dredged-up version of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1933 “nothing to fear but fear itself” mantra.
Of course, with the U.S. mired in a Great Depression and on the brink of World War II, there was plenty to fear then. Much of the country was out of work. Millions were about to be uprooted from their homes and be put to death because of their faith. The world was facing conquest by tyrannical madmen.
Roosevelt’s talk didn’t end the economic calamity he inherited. In fact, it got worse – much worse. It didn’t address the Nazi march or deal with the looming threats to world stability and security.
And neither will Obama’s less-than-empty words.
But that’s not what bothers me about what Obama said.