Saudi Prince VIP movement behind Mina Stampede

Press TV has conducted an interview with Colin Cavell, a university lecturer and political commentator from Virginia, to get his insight into the main cause of the crush incident during the Hajj rites in Mina, a holy city near Mecca.

 

---- The following is a rough transcription of the interview.

 

Press TV: Why is it that despite raking in huge amounts of money from the Hajj pilgrimage, Saudi Arabia cares less for pilgrim safety and instead invests in building skyscrapers, which are literally changing the religious identity of the city as well?

 

Cavell: As the Saudi officials have already indicated, they blame the people for the deaths. They’re trying to cover up what is a very tragic crime. We have here at least 700 people dead and more probably upwards of 2000 with over 131 Iranians dead so far. And this is just the preliminary results.

And what we have here is a newspaper in Lebanon on Thursday reported that the road was deliberately blocked and now we’re finding enough from other sources, it was blocked because deputy crown price Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud, the youngest defense minister in the world, 30 years old, has been escorted by over 340 military policemen. And this caused the people to be turned away from the small narrow route and began to avoid confronting this convoy. They quickly flew him out and then they put a silence on any reports that Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman was anywhere in the area.

So, What we have is a tragedy on many levels internally. As President Rouhani of Iran said you have many of experienced soldiers in Saudi Arabia who are engaged in a reckless war down in Yemen. You have what is virtually the “Foxes Guarding the Hen House” in Saudi Arabia. You have mismanagement at Saudi Arabia’s highest levels. They have tons of money and they do not care about the pilgrims. They do not care about the people. They only interested in gaining incredibly and increasingly more and more money.

And you can see the same thing with Saudi Arabia buying a seat recently on the Human Rights Council. There you have the foxes guarding the hen house. Now you have in Saudi Arabia, which claims to be the custodian of the two holy mosques, there also you have the foxes guarding the hen house. We have to get rid of these foxes.

 

 

 

Press TV: Indeed, many countries criticize Saudi Arabia for its mismanagement.  How do you think such a great annual event should be managed then? I mean, there shouldn’t be a council of several Muslim countries instead of only Saudi Arabia?

 

 

 

Cavell: That would be a better arrangement than having one state claiming to be the sole custodian of the two holy mosques.

If they claim to be the custodian, then they should be the custodian. They should actually act in a responsible manner, but as we’ve seen back just 25 years ago we saw 1400 people were killed. Just two months ago, we saw over a hundred more people killed. And now we probably have over 2,000 people killed. So, they’re not really learning from their responsibility.

Editor's Note:
----- Already people who fell martyr during Mina Stampede is tragic, moreover, the way their dead bodies which were handled on-site with dump trucks is "deplorable". If United Nations do not raise any voice against it or muslim leaders remain silent, then we should remove the word humanity and replace it with barbarism. UN Headquarters should turn into museum - if they are silent? By the way, do they have any voice of humanity? oops Voice of Barbarism.
------ Surely, Saudia Arab should NO longer be sole custodians of Holy Place. More muslim states should be involved.
----- Wake up World .... !!!!!

................................................

 

Edited By:

 

Kanwal Abidi      *063 News - Global Press Agency (Founder)

*Political Analyst & Journalist

Trump on 2nd Amendment, issues Policy on Rights to Keep Arms !!!

PROTECTING OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

Donald J. Trump on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.

The Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all law-abiding Americans. The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple.

It’s been said that the Second Amendment is America’s first freedom. That’s because the Right to Keep and Bear Arms protects all our other rights. We are the only country in the world that has a Second Amendment. Protecting that freedom is imperative. Here’s how we will do that:

- Enforce The Laws On The Books

We need to get serious about prosecuting violent criminals. The Obama administration’s record on that is abysmal. Violent crime in cities like Baltimore, Chicago and many others is out of control. Drug dealers and gang members are given a slap on the wrist and turned loose on the street. This needs to stop.

Several years ago there was a tremendous program in Richmond, Virginia called Project Exile. It said that if a violent felon uses a gun to commit a crime, you will be prosecuted in federal court and go to prison for five years – no parole or early release. Obama’s former Attorney General, Eric Holder, called that a “cookie cutter” program. That’s ridiculous. I call that program a success. Murders committed with guns in Richmond decreased by over 60% when Project Exile was in place – in the first two years of the program alone, 350 armed felons were taken off the street.

Why does that matter to law-abiding gun owners? Because they’re the ones who anti-gun politicians and the media blame when criminals misuse guns. We need to bring back and expand programs like Project Exile and get gang members and drug dealers off the street. When we do, crime will go down and our cities and communities will be safer places to live.

Here’s another important way to fight crime – empower law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves. Law enforcement is great, they do a tremendous job, but they can’t be everywhere all of the time. Our personal protection is ultimately up to us. That’s why I’m a gun owner, that’s why I have a concealed carry permit, and that’s why tens of millions of Americans have concealed carry permits as well. It’s just common sense. To make America great again, we’re going to go after criminals and put the law back on the side of the law-abiding.

- Fix Our Broken Mental Health System

Let’s be clear about this. Our mental health system is broken. It needs to be fixed. Too many politicians have ignored this problem for too long.

All of the tragic mass murders that occurred in the past several years have something in common – there were red flags that were ignored. We can’t allow that to continue. We need to expand treatment programs, because most people with mental health problems aren’t violent, they just need help. But for those who are violent, a danger to themselves or others, we need to get them off the street before they can terrorize our communities. This is just common sense.

And why does this matter to law-abiding gun owners? Once again, because they get blamed by anti-gun politicians, gun control groups and the media for the acts of deranged madmen. When one of these tragedies occurs, we can count on two things: one, that opponents of gun rights will immediately exploit it to push their political agenda; and two, that none of their so-called “solutions” would have prevented the tragedy in the first place. They’ve even admitted it.

We need real solutions to address real problems. Not grandstanding or political agendas.

- Defend The Rights of Law-Abiding Gun Owners

GUN AND MAGAZINE BANS. Gun and magazine bans are a total failure. That’s been proven every time it’s been tried. Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like “assault weapons”, “military-style weapons” and “high capacity magazines” to confuse people. What they’re really talking about are popular semi-automatic rifles and standard magazines that are owned by tens of millions of Americans. Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own.

BACKGROUND CHECKS. There has been a national background check system in place since 1998. Every time a person buys a gun from a federally licensed gun dealer – which is the overwhelming majority of all gun purchases – they go through a federal background check. Study after study has shown that very few criminals are stupid enough to try and pass a background check – they get their guns from friends/family members or by stealing them. So the overwhelming majority of people who go through background checks are law-abiding gun owners. When the system was created, gun owners were promised that it would be instant, accurate and fair. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case today. Too many states are failing to put criminal and mental health records into the system – and it should go without saying that a system’s only going to be as effective as the records that are put into it. What we need to do is fix the system we have and make it work as intended. What we don’t need to do is expand a broken system.

NATIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY. The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. If we can do that for driving – which is a privilege, not a right – then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege.

MILITARY BASES AND RECRUITING CENTERS. Banning our military from carrying firearms on bases and at recruiting centers is ridiculous. We train our military how to safely and responsibly use firearms, but our current policies leave them defenseless. To make America great again, we need a strong military. To have a strong military, we need to allow them to defend themselves.

..................................

Edited & Compiled by:

KANWAL ABIDI   * 063 News (Press Agency)                                                                                   *Political Analyst & Journalist 

Trump on Gun Policy in CNN Presidential Debate

On 16th Sept, 2015 - Trump steps up on podium, set ahead of Reagan's Air Force One, at Reagan Library, to answer the world, why he should sit, next - in Oval Office, White House!

During the Wednesday’s CNN Republican Debate, moderators allotted for very little time for candidate to make clear their position on the Second Amendment.

Being given literally zero time to discuss his position on the issue of gun rights, front-runner Donald J. Trump released an official statement pertaining to the matter directly on to his campaign website. Let me tell you, Michael Bloomberg and his ‘Everytown’ ilk are not going to like this one bit…

—-
 READER APPROVED CCW LOOPHOLE! GET A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT GOOD IN 28 STATES… FROM THE COMFORT OF YOUR HOME!
Hundreds of LibertyNEWS.com readers have jumped at the new program that helps anyone in any state get a concealed carry permit good in 28 states. This permit can be applied for from home and we recommend all readers consider it. Click here to learn more.
—-

The opening statement reads “The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.” 

Yes… He added “Period” after a period with another period, making it clear that he believes the people have the right to keep and bear arms under the constitution, end of story. Ok, I dig that… Moving on.

Trump’s statement immediately addresses liberal arguments on gun control by explaining that the right to bear arms is an essential part of self-defense.

“The Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all law-abiding Americans. The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away…. the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple.

It’s been said that the Second Amendment is America’s first freedom. That’s because the Right to Keep and Bear Arms protects all our other rights… Protecting that freedom is imperative.”

Oh, it gets far better…

Going on to attack gun-control efforts by the Obama administration along with a list of catastrophic gun-control failures around the nation that have done absolutely nothing but harm law-abiding citizens, Trump states it is time to get serious about prosecuting criminals.

The Obama administration’s record on that is abysmal. Violent crime in cities like Baltimore, Chicago and many others is out of control. Drug dealers and gang members are given a slap on the wrist and turned loose on the street. This needs to stop.

Why does that matter to law-abiding gun owners? Because they’re the ones who anti-gun politicians and the media blame when criminals misuse guns. 

Here’s another important way to fight crime – empower law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves. Law enforcement is great… but they can’t be everywhere all of the time. Our personal protection is ultimately up to us. That’s why I’m a gun owner, that’s why I have a concealed carry permit, and that’s why tens of millions of Americans have concealed carry permits as well. It’s just common sense. To make America great again, we’re going to go after criminals and put the law back on the side of the law-abiding.

Trump goes on to cover the nation’s broke mental health system, explaining that “all of the tragic mass murders that occurred in the past several years have something in common – there were red flags that were ignored.” 

Trump covered the “total failure” of gun and magazine bans while attacking gun-grabber efforts to strike fear in the minds of the general public by using “scary” terms such as “assault weapons”, “military-style weapons” and“high capacity magazines.”

The policy calls for an end to efforts to strip rights to own such magazines and firearms.

In probably one of the most important parts of the policy, Trump calls for a National Conceal Carry program to function like a driver’s license. While we believe the 2nd Amendment serves as a carry permit and other permits should not be required, Trump’s stance is a huge step in the right direction.

NATIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY. The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. If we can do that for driving – which is a privilege, not a right – then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege.

Very well done.

..........................................................................

Edited By:

KANWAL ABIDI   
*063 NEWS (Founder, Press Agency) 
- Political Analyst & Journalist 

Obama addresses Jewish Audience on Iran Deal

Obama came forward on the frontline to defend Iran Deal by saying "fifteen years from now, the president, whoever that may be, will be in a stronger position to respond to the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons, if the current deal with Tehran is adopted and implemented", told an online audience for the Jewish Federations of North America on Friday.

Obama said the U.S. would have greater “knowledge” of the Iranian nuclear program after 15 years,  when key provisions of the agreement such as limits on uranium enrichment and centrifuges expire.

The president vowed that the U.S. would be prepared to respond in the even that Iran dashes for nuclear weapons. “We are confident in our ability to respond,” he said.

Although the president insisted that international will to continue to enforce multilateral sanctions against Iran’s financial and oil sectors would largely dissolve if Congress moves to reject the deal, he also said the U.S. would not need agreements from China, Russia, or even the U.S.’s European partners if Iran violates the deal to re-impose multilateral sanctions. And he said the U.S. was not backing away from sanctions on Iranian human rights abuses and support for terror.

Additionally, the president noted that the interim agreement announced in late 2013, in which Iran scaled back some of its enrichment activities, paved the way for the current deal, setting a precedent for removing some sanctions in exchange for Iranian compliance on scaling back its nuclear program.

The president addressed Israeli opposition to the deal, calling it a “visceral reaction” to Iran’s denial of the Holocaust and perennial pledges to decimate the Jewish state. He insisted that the “best security is to enter into negotiations with your enemies.”

Obama conceded that while Iran has yet to rein in its harsh rhetoric against the U.S. — such comity is “not forthcoming at the moment,” he admitted — his conclusion was that that’s how “politicians operate … even in Iran.”

The president played down the perceived animosity between himself and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, noting that “my best friends are the ones who I can be honest with. That’s what being good friends means.”

He rejected notions that there should be no daylight between the White House and Jerusalem — a notion perpetuated most recently by former Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren — saying that “could be dangerous if it leads us to make bad decisions for the interests of these two countries.”

Still, he said, on the Iranian issue “we agree more than we disagree,” adding that in the debate over the Iran deal, “we’re all pro-Israel, and we’re all family.”

He said relations between the U.S. and Israel would improve “quickly” if the deal is implemented, and encouraged working together to “enhance our security cooperation; to think about the next generations of missile defense programs, how we improve our intelligence and interdiction to prevent arms from reaching terrorist groups,” and to overall counteract Iranian-backed terrorist activities in the region.

 .......................................

News Edited By:

Kanwal Abidi - Political Analyst 

063 News (Press Agency)

Pak India Peace Talks Press Briefing

Office of the Spokesperson

Press Release

Pakistan has carefully analyzed the contents of the Press Conference of the Indian Minister for External Affairs, Mrs. Sushma Sawaraj this afternoon. We have come to the conclusion that the proposed NSA level talks between the two countries would not serve any purpose, if conducted on the basis of the two conditions laid down by the Minister.

While the Indian Minister accepts that, to ensure durable peace between the two countries, there is a need to discuss all outstanding issues through a sustained dialogue process, started in 1998 as Composite Dialogue and renamed as Resumed Dialogue in 2011, she then unilaterally restricts the agenda to only two items: creating an atmosphere free from terrorism and tranquility on the LoC.

Considering that many terror “incidents” blamed initially by India on Pakistan eventually turned out to be fake, it is not improbable that India can delay the Resumed Dialogue indefinitely by concocting one or two incidents and keeping the LoC hot.

It is equally important to recall that terrorism was always a part of the eight point composite dialogue and it was always discussed simultaneously with other issues between the Interior Secretaries.  It is not reasonable for India to now assume the right to decide unilaterally that from now onwards, other issues will be discussed after terrorism has been discussed and eliminated. 

The main purpose of any dialogue between India and Pakistan is to reduce tensions and restore trust as a first step towards normalization.  If the only purpose of NSA level talks is to discuss terrorism, then instead of improving the prospects for peace it will only intensify the blame game and further vitiate the atmosphere.  That is why Pakistan had suggested that apart from discussion on terrorism related issues, the two sides should also discuss modalities and if possible a time schedule, for discussions on all outstanding issues including Kashmir, Siachen and Sir Creek, in keeping with the understanding of the Ufa statement.  That is the only way to improve the prospects for peace between the two countries.

The EAM’s attempt to draw a distinction between preambular and operative paragraphs in the Ufa statement appears to be an after-thought to justify a position that is counterproductive in terms of the ultimate objective of reducing tensions and improving trust.

As regards the second pre-condition regarding meeting with Hurriyat leaders, it has been pointed out repeatedly that it has been a long-standing practice that whenever Pakistani leaders visited India during the past twenty years, they have been meeting Hurriyet leaders.  It would be inappropriate for India to now impose the condition of changing this longstanding practice.

Pakistan, therefore, reiterates that the scheduled NSA level talks cannot be held on the basis of the preconditions set by India.

Islamabad

22 August 2015



Donald Trump can Whine but NOT Apologize !

Trumup leads on in polls, yet losing his credibility:

In the wake of GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump's refusal to apologize to Fox News' Megyn Kelly, one of the moderators of last week's GOP debate, for his controversial comments about her, we've rounded up all of the times Trump has apologized for something he's said: 

So far, the list is empty. In a cursory Internet search of recent Trump-related kerfuffles, it appears that Donald Trump has never publicly apologized for anything.

Following the much talked about, much "meme'd" GOP debate, Trump claimed that Kelly had it out for him and made a comment about how she had "blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her... wherever," while asking him questions.

That quip didn't go over well. He was told not to come to a major gathering of conservatives, known as the Red State conference, held in Atlanta, Georgia, over the weekend. But he told CNN's Jake Tapper that his remarks were misunderstood, and that he "said nothing wrong whatsoever."

Trump believes that if anyone should be issued an apology, it's him. He told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that Kelly owes him an apology for her questions aimed at the candidate.

Remember Trump's comments about Sen. John McCain? Mexican immigrants? Rosie O'Donnell?

Yeah, he isn't apologizing for any of those either.

Trump denied saying that McCain wasn't a war hero, but remarked that he would like to see him do more to help war veterans. Not an apology per se, but more like a half-denial, half-apology hybrid.

His comments on Mexico and immigrants? Nope. No apology. Back in July, he told Fox News Channel's "MediaBuzz" that his controversial comments about Mexican immigrants being rapists and murderers stemmed from media reports on crime near the border, and therefore he "can never apologize for the truth."

On calling women that he didn't agree with fat pigs, slobs or disgusting animals (particularly O'Donnell)? Nothing to be sorry for there, either.

"What I say is what I say," Trump replied during the GOP debate when Kelly asked if this type of temperament was appropriate for the office of president of the United States. "And honestly, Megyn, if you don't like it, I'm sorry," he continued. "I've been very nice to you, although I could probably maybe not be, based on the way you have treated me."

There has been one apology out of Trump's camp, however. Alas, it didn't come from the mogul himself, but rather his lawyer.

Trump on his ex-wife:

Amidst reports of a decades-old rape allegation disclosed in Trump's early 1990s divorce from then-wife Ivana, his lawyer Michael Cohen made the comment that "you cannot rape your spouse."

Cohen later apologized for this remark after Trump distanced himself from the situation.

Conclusion:

On Monday 10th August 2015, Trump told CNN Anchor in New Day program, "I can Whine to Win, and I am greatest Whiner". On a point of thought, if Trump does not change his apologetic behavior and keeps bragging on bringing changes and not giving policy statement - Trump might be hallucinated by the leading Republicans polls at present.

.....................................

Edited By:

                Kanwal Abidi - 063 News
                   (Special Correspondent - International News)

Eds Note ...  If someone can rape his own wife, call women on live shows that they are menstruating, will surely never be able to deal with Vldamir Putin or strike US-Iran Nuclear Deal, and let alone the American women health issues would be ignored. So, think wise and vote for sensible candidate ......

US Supreme Court Gives Ruling for Same - Sex Marriage

FIRST AMENDMENT DEFENSE ACT:

In the wake of Friday’s 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court in the marriage case, Obergefell v. Hodges, many of the millions of Americans who voted to define marriage as an exclusively male-female institution in their state constitutions will be wondering: What does this mean for me?

Congress must move swiftly to pass the First Amendment Defense Act.

If five judges on the Supreme Court have pronounced, in a breathtaking presumption of power, that all 50 states must redefine marriage, what does that mean for the countless institutions within our civil society—churches and synagogues, charities and adoption agencies, counseling services and religiously affiliated schools—that are made up of American citizens who believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman?

Will federal government agencies follow the heavy-handed approach taken by the present majority of Supreme Court justices—say, by revoking the non-profit, tax-exempt status of faith-based schools that continue to operate on the basis of their religious beliefs about marriage?

Nowhere in the majority’s 28-page opinion will you find a reliable answer to these questions. In his dissent notes, Chief Justice John Roberts explains why.

“Federal courts are blunt instruments when it comes to creating rights,” Roberts writes, because “they do not have the flexibility of legislatures to address concerns of parties not before the court or to anticipate problems that may arise from the exercise of a new right.”

It’s true that Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, acknowledges—as if in passing—that “The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths,” including their conviction that marriage is the union between one man and one woman.

But this may prove to be little consolation for those who have conscientious objections to the redefinition of marriage. For the remainder of Kennedy’s opinion, like much of today’s jurisprudence, is based on the pretension that the role of judges is not merely to resolve cases and controversies in the law, but to apply their own “reasoned judgment” to define for each successive generation the “nature of injustice” and define the “meaning of liberty”.

That’s why I recently introduced a bill, with Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, in the House, called the First Amendment Defense Act that would prevent any agency from denying a federal tax exemption, grant, contract, accreditation, license, or certification to an individual or institution for acting on their religious belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

In light of the Supreme Court decision, Congress must move swiftly to pass the First Amendment Defense Act and clarify in federal law what five justices left ambiguous in their legal opinion: that the right to form and to follow one’s religious beliefs is the bedrock of human dignity and liberty that must be forcefully defended from government interference.

..........................................................

Reporting By:     Kanwal Abidi     (063 News- Press Agency)