Has the United States Been Taken Hostage by the NRA?

'90 deaths a day': US doctors call for end to ban on gun violence research

 Did you even know there was a ban on gun violence research?

Why?

© Baz Ratner / Reuters

A group of US doctors has called on Congress to lift a decades-long ban that prohibits the use of federal money for gun violence research. The move comes as mass shootings in the US are on a rise, with estimated 90 people dying daily in gun-related violence.

The group presented a petition signed by more than 2,000 physicians from across the USA, calling on Capitol Hill to put an end to the so-called Dickey Amendment, which has been blocking the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from carrying out research on gun violence for the last two decades.

Doctors for America led a press conference on Wednesday and were joined by a handful of Democrats. Several speeches were held at Capitol Hill, stressing that gun violence in the US is a public health crisis that needs urgent solutions.

“Gun violence is a public health problem that kills 90 Americans a day,” Dr Alice Chen, executive director of the lobby group Doctors for America, said. “Physicians believe it’s time to lift this effective ban and fund the research needed to save lives. We urge Congress to put patients over politics to help find solutions to our nation’s gun violence crisis.”

Another doctor at the presser, Nina Agrawal, a pediatrician from the South Bronx, expressed her disappointment with how little has been accomplished in the past 20 years. “In my career, I’ve seen children lives saved from measles, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, motor vehicle accidents… because of federal scientific data and research. It’s frustrating that the CDC is not permitted to do the same type of research for gun violence.”

The calls for more funds for research into gun violence come as the Americans deal with the shock of two mass shootings in just one week. Last Friday, November 27, a gunman opened fire at a Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado Springs, leaving three dead.

This was followed by a tragic mass shooting in San Bernadino, California, on Wednesday, where 14 people were killed and 17 more wounded. Police said a couple went on a shooting spree at a regional center that aids people with disabilities. They were killed during a shootout with police after a manhunt.
Of course, this was an act of terror, so not your typical mass shooting, but still a mass shooting.

The US has one of the world's worst records for gun crimes, (in the developed world) with the latest attack in San Bernardino being the 353rd mass shooting in 2015. Moreover, there are about 33,000 Americans that are killed every year with firearms.

The doctors’ groups compared gun violence to traffic accidents, stating that both kill around the same number of people each year in the US. The doctors added that the federal government has allocated $240 million a year for traffic safety research during the past two decades, while no money has been spent on analysis of gun violence. 

The ban that blocks the use of federal funding for gun violence research stems from 1996, when Congress passed the amendment following pressure from the National Rifle Association as well as various pro-gun lobbyists. Previous efforts to overturn the ban have failed. President Barack Obama has unsuccessfully asked for $10 million for gun violence research in the past two budgets.

My first impulse was to say that this is borderline insanity, but there is nothing 'borderline' about it! I can think of very few things more sinister in American politics than the Dickey Amendment. It is entirely about the NRA and it's sponsors doing whatever it takes to ensure the gun-making and sales industry does not slow down in America, regardless of how many thousands of lives are lost.

My most distressing concern about all this is the duping of American Christians into believing that this has something to do with the Second Amendment. It has nothing to do with the Second Amendment - it was never created so that anyone in America could purchase assault weapons designed to do one thing - kill Americans.

The Second Amendment ruse is simply how the NRA , and gun-makers and sellers, manipulate gullible Christians.

“For over 20 years, politicians have put a gag order on public health research for gun violence only to score political points,” Representative Carolyn Maloney, a Democrat from New York, said. “On public health matters, it’s critical we listen to doctors – not politicians.”

The attempts to lift the ban have been squashed by Republicans, who continue to deny the link between gun violence and public health.

Monsanto to Face ‘Tribunal’ in The Hague for ‘Damage to Human Health and Environment’

It will be interesting to see how much Monsanto pays attention to this, and how much the American media will pay attention to it. My guess it, 'not much' on both counts.

© Mal Langsdon / Reuters

A global group of professionals, scientists and environmentalists – the Monsanto Tribunal – are preparing a trial for the GMO seed giant in The Hague. They say the crowdfunded action, determined to charge Monsanto with “ecocide,” is more than a symbolic move.

The Monsanto Tribunal’s goal is to research and evaluate all of the allegations made against Monsanto in connection to all the damages its products have caused to human health and the environment. It is scheduled to be held at The Hague from October 12 to 16 in 2016. The trial will wrap up on next year’s World Food Day.

One of the main goals the broad group of signees [ABOUT US] wants the tribunal to achieve is establishing “ecocide” as a crime. “Recognizing ecocide as a crime is the only way to guarantee the right of humans to a healthy environment and the right of nature to be protected,” The International Monsanto Tribunal says on its website.

The Tribunal will look into a range of charges, including what it says are Monsanto’s crimes against nature and humanity.

“The Tribunal will rely on the ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’ adopted at the UN in 2011. It will also assess potential criminal liability on the basis of the Rome Statue (Statute) that created the International Criminal Court in The Hague in 2002, and it will consider whether a reform of international criminal law is warranted to include crimes against the environment, or ecocide, as a prosecutable criminal offense, so that natural persons could incur criminal liability.”

Several bodies and groups are supporting the initiative, including the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), IFOAM International Organics, Navdanya, Regeneration International (RI), and Millions Against Monsanto, as well as dozens more farming and environmental groups.

The decision to proceed with the tribunal was announced by the groups shortly before the Sustainable Pulse report was published, which was part of the COP21 UN Conference on Climate Change that runs until December 11 in Paris.

“The time is long overdue for a global citizens’ tribunal to put Monsanto on trial for crimes against humanity and the environment. We are in Paris this month to address the most serious threat that humans have ever faced in our 100-200,000 year evolution—global warming and climate disruption,” the president of the Organic Consumers Association, Ronnie Cummins, said at the press conference.

Meanwhile, president of IFOAM and member of the RI Steering Committee Andre Leu accused Monsanto of ignoring the human and environmental damage created by its products. Leu added that the transnational is able to maintain its devastating practices “by lobbying regulatory agencies and governments, by resorting to lying and corruption, by financing fraudulent scientific studies, by pressuring independent scientists, and by manipulating the press and media.”

“Monsanto’s history reads like a text-book case of impunity, benefiting transnational corporations and their executives, whose activities contribute to climate and biosphere crises and threaten the safety of the planet,” Leu stressed.

The American-based company has enjoyed a good reputation in the US media and is known for its strong ties on Capitol Hill.

The Monsanto Tribunal argues that the company is responsible for the depletion of soil and water resources, species extinction, and declining biodiversity, as well as the displacement of millions of small farmers worldwide.

Farmers in certain countries have been taking these developments very hard. In India, an alarming wave of suicides tied to Monsanto’s practices has been registered among farmers.

Instead of traditional crops, farmers have been forced to grow GM cotton, which is more expensive and requires additional maintenance. In the last 20 years, this trend has driven some 290,000 farmers to commit suicide due to bankruptcy, according to India’s national crimes bureau records.

Subjecting Monsanto to real legal consequences will be a challenge, though, as the corporation has never lost a case.

The company is notorious for routinely suing farmers, which has earned it the reputation of a legal bully in the eyes of critics. According to Food Democracy Now, the GMO corporation has filed 145 lawsuits since 1997, because farmers had reused their seeds in a manner inconsistent with Monsanto policies. This even includes cases where the farmers themselves had sued Monsanto for the inadvertent cross-pollination of their organic crops with GMO seeds.

One lawsuit representing 300,000 farmers was thrown out of court – for the mere reason that the farmers had already been sued by Monsanto. According to Food Democracy Now, the judge called the farmers’ case “unsubstantiated.”

Untold damage has also been caused to the ecosphere by the dying-off of 970 million Monarch butterflies since 1990. The herbicides Monsanto sells eradicate a range of the prolific pollinators’ natural food sources. The statistic was released by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in February.

People demonstrated in over 400 major cities across the world in May to tell the GMO giant they do not want its produce in their food. It was the third global March Against Monsanto (MAM). 

Fighting Islamic Terrorism

‘Own it!’ Terrorism is an Islamic issue, say some Muslims

Panel agrees we have to fight radical ideology in Islam but we can only do that by exposing the truth about Islam itself

Cathy Lynn Grossman RNS

A panel of Muslim leaders, speaking at The Heritage Foundation on Dec. 3, 2015, said it’s critical to recognize the religious roots of terror to defeat it. From left to right: Zudhi Jasser; Naser Khader; Farahnez Ispahani, and Asra Nomani. Photo courtesy of The Heritage Foundation

WASHINGTON (RNS) While details are still unfolding as to why a California Muslim couple turned to murder, Muslims in the West must step up and admit terrorism is rooted in extremist Islam, said four Muslim panelists speaking at a conservative think tank on Thursday (Dec. 3).

They criticized major U.S. Muslim groups that lament such tragedies but say their religion is not responsible. They insisted the violence has roots in Islam, and that Islamist political terror is nurtured in Saudi Arabia’s strict Wahhabi branch of the faith.

And they blasted the Obama administration for steadfastly refusing to brand terror as Islamic extremism. President Obama decried the deaths and pledged a thorough investigation of the attack but cautioned against setting blame based on the killers’ Muslim names.

“President Obama simply does not embrace reality,” said Farahnez Ispahani, a former member of the Pakistani Parliament and author of an upcoming book on that Pakistan’s religious minorities.

She mocked the way that the administration responds to attacks. Rather than calling in progressive Muslim leaders in U.S civil society, she said: “They call in imams and they hold an interfaith event and they are all happy.

“But there is no clear ideological campaign to fight ISIS or Islamists,” she said, to a smattering of applause in the audience of about 50 people. Islam has been “hijacked” and people are afraid if they admit it, it will spark Islamophobia, Ispahani said.

“Terror is a Muslim issue, an Islamic issue within the house of Islam,” said M. Zuhdi Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, “and we must own it” to fight it. He moderated the event held at the Heritage Foundation, which had been planned after the Paris attacks.

Naser Khader, a member of the Parliament of Denmark for the Conservative People’s Party, said Muslims themselves must lead the fight rather than hide behind excuses that killers are not truly Muslim. Instead, they should condemn Islamist jihadists ”without any excuses.”

“If we the Muslims do not face the problem of violence, how will we ever succeed in lifting this from those powers and bring it into the 21st century?” Khader asked. He called for rereading the Quran in the light of modern times and presenting strong religious arguments for change.

Khader and Ispahani were part of a weeklong “Summit of Western Muslim Voices of Reform against the Islamic State and Islamism.” Under the umbrella of Jasser’s forum, 20 people from the U.S., Europe and the Middle East identified as “Muslim reformers” met to propose ways to counter “the ideologies which fuel global Muslim radicalization.”

Thursday, the finger of blame was pointed directly at Saudi Arabia, which the panelists said stands on strict Quranic literalism. This takes a seventh-century view of unbelievers, women and minorities that allows for terror, murder and deprivation of human rights, they agreed.

“As an evangelical Christian obviously I disagree with Islam fundamentally,” Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptists’ Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, told NPR’s “Morning Edition” on Friday.

“At the same time, I’m very disturbed when I hear the sorts of talk that we’ve been hearing over the last several months about shutting down mosques, about identifying Muslims in this country.

“That is a very dangerous place to be, both at a human rights level but also in terms of religious liberty,” said Moore.

He's right, of course, although one could argue that what we are currently doing, or not doing, is equally dangerous, and perhaps more so. Liberalizing Islam will never fly! People will always gravitate to essential fundamentals of their religious beliefs, and in Islam that is the life of Mohammed.

As the panel pointed out, we must fight radical Islam at the ideological level. But to simply point out that radicalism is wrong and not true Islam is going to accomplish nothing when it is obvious that Mohammed, himself, would be considered an extremist today. He was a murderer, an antisemite, a pedophile in his later years, a liar and a warmonger. He was also incredibly selfish. And, he put the Arab world back under 'the Law' from which Jesus Christ had set us free nearly 700 years earlier.

Of course such inflammatory statements are very dangerous and likely to be counterproductive. But such ideas can be slowly and gently raised in a manner that causes people to think and explore for themselves. It would take courage, and, unfortunately, I don't think there is anyone in the western media with that kind of courage.

Islamic radicalism cannot be defeated without defeating Islam, and that cannot be done on the battlefield.

Global Warming - Getting Off the Fence (Updated)

Climatology strongly suggests there will be no global temperature rise of any consequence for the next 10-15 years, and only 0.5 - 0.75 degree rise by the end of the century

IPCC computer models are completely out to lunch

Most CO2 production is natural, not man-made

Increased CO2 may be caused by global warming 

- not the other way about

When I started writing this piece I was firmly and painfully on the fence. With my background in meteorology and climatology, I have often been asked my opinion on global warming. It has always been, 'the planet is getting warmer; how much man is responsible for that is anybodies guess'. However, by the time I finished writing the piece, I became convinced that 
global warming (from man-made pollution) is a sham and a scam.

Global warming enthusiasts proudly announce that 14 of the hottest years on record have occurred in the past 15 years. No argument there. But that is evidence of long-term global warming, a trend that has probably gone on for centuries. That it roughly coincides with the industrial revolution may be more coincidental than causal. At any rate it has little to do with the present. That the planet has warmed over the past 135 years is indisputable. That it has not warmed over the past 12 years and some would argue 18 years, is also well documented. 

How could that happen? The chart below reveals little warming from 1979 – 1997. Then the strongest El Nino on record boosted the global temperature by about 0.75 degrees C. but only briefly. One would think that the global temperature would rise a lot more consistently than that if it were largely dependent on man-made CO2 emissions, after all, emissions are still increasing consistently and CO2 levels have been measured as still increasing.

The two largest drops in global temperatures occurred in 1993 with the spectacular a Mt Pinatubo eruption, and in 1984 when volcanoes erupted in Hawaii, Chile and Colombia. The Colombia eruption claimed about 25,000 lives, so it was no minor event.

The point here is that natural events seem to have far, far greater effect on the global temperature than man-made events. An Australian geologist once said that all the pollution saving measures for 5 years could be wiped out with one volcano.

Nevertheless, if we dismiss those two events and examine the remaining 'troughs', we find a rise in temperature of about 1/3rd of a degree between 1979 and 2013. This, I suspect, is a representative measure of global warming over that period.

The IPCC, in 1990 predicted a 1.0 deg rise in temperature by 2025. The chart below indicates a less than half degree rise since 1979 – 35 years. Since 1990 we are looking at about 0.2 degree rise in temperature – 24 years. We have to jump 0.8 degrees in the next ten years to meet that target, twice the rise over the past 35 years. 

We currently have raging the second or third strongest El Nino event in the history of studying El Nino – 1950. It may rise to the second strongest or even the strongest event before it ends – expected to be next May or June. This should result in a large increase in global temperature for 2015; that will help. However, the effect will wear off very quickly. In the chart above, each significant upward spike is caused by an el nino event; and each spike is followed by a cooling of between 0.25 and 0.5 deg C. So, by 2016, or at the latest 2017, the temperature should fall back down to about where it was before the el nino event began.

In the Bible, false prophecies resulted in the ‘prophet’ being stoned as a phony. Should the IPCC prediction fail significantly, it means the computer models are all an example of junk science and imagination, with little basis in reality.

Now this looks scary, until you look at the temperature scale – 0.2 degrees. The chart reveals some interesting trends. Very little change in the first 30 years (perhaps a small drop); Then a pretty steady rise from 1910 to about 1942, a rise of 0.4 deg. After that the temperature drops by 0.1 deg and stays there from about 1948 to about 1977. From 1977 to about 2005 another steady rise in temperature of about 0.6 degrees, although, if you look at the satellite-based temperatures (second chart above) it shows a rise of only 0.3 degrees during that period. I suspect the satellite data are more accurate than the ground data. (I used to be responsible for the quality control of ground data and my confidence in the integrity of it deteriorated rapidly in the past 20 years.) After that we have about 15 years of temperatures holding steady. 

So, the two cycles of rising temperatures account for a rise of 0.7 degrees with each cycle preceded by a drop of 0.1 degrees resulting in a total increase of 0.5 degrees for the 20th century. 

So, for the earth to reach the IPCC target of a 1.0 degree increase in temperature by 2025, we would have to warm in the next 9 years more than we have warmed over the past 135 years.

Here’s where it gets a little weird. When I worked in the Canadian Forces Weather Centre at Trenton, Ontario, in the late 1960s, I read an article by a climatologist who indicated that temperature patterns run in 30 year cycles. This was long before we even thought about global warming. But notice the periods I described above: 1880-1910; 1910-1945; 1945-1977; and 1977-2002. Those are either exactly 30 year cycles or remarkably close.

If the pattern of rising for 30 years followed by steady for 30 years repeats itself, then we are in the midst of a period of little change in temperature; a period that should last about another 15 years.

Furthermore, if we projected that pattern through to the end of the century we would find a roughly 1/3rd of a degree rise between about 2030 and 2060, followed by another 30 years of steady temperatures, then another cycle of rising temperatures. We would be in the middle of this last cycle at the end of the century so we could expect another 1/6th of a degree rise in temperature by 2100. Total temperature increase during the 21st century = 0.5 degrees.

Even if we used a 0.5 degree average for each rising cycle, it would only equal a 0.75 degree increase by 2100 - less than the IPCC is forecasting for 2025.

Global temperature increase by the year 2100 = 0.5 to 0.75 degs.

I realize that this is very simple climatology, but making it much more complex doesn't make it any more correct nor does it change the pattern. That pattern has been occurring for the past 135 years since we began documenting the global temperature. Who knows how long it existed before that? So the question is, why would we suddenly depart from that well-established pattern? 

What's wrong with IPCC computer models?

Prof Murry Salby makes an excellent case for the idea that CO2 doesn’t drive the temperature, but the temperature drives CO2. His meticulous research reveals that increased CO2 follows increased temperatures rather than the reverse. 

He calculated that 96% of CO2 that enters the atmosphere comes from the ground, not man-made activity. He also determined that the amount of CO2 that comes from the ground is determined by the temperature, and to a lesser amount, the moisture content of the ground.

Swedish climate scientist Pehr Björnbom has recently replicated the work of Dr. Murry Salby, finding that temperature, not man-made CO2, drives CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Dr. Björnbom confirms Salby's hypothesis that the rate of change in carbon dioxide concentration in the air follows an equation that only depends on temperature change, detailed in his report 'Reconstruction of Murry Salby's theory' that carbon dioxide increase is temperature driven [Google translation].

This is critical for Prof Salby has come under a lot of criticism for matters mostly unrelated to science. He was pressured into resigning after 20 years at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and suspended from receiving any grant money from the National Science Foundation. A reader in the 'Comments' section below this post has indicated that UofCBoulder attempted to 'steal' Prof. Salby's work and prevent him from having access to his own data. I can't verify that but it doesn't sound unreasonable.

Five years later he was fired from Macquarie University in Australia, again for reasons not related to science, apparently. Was Salby black-balled for his rebellious views on climate change? Some people think so. I have no idea, but it is not something that I would easily dismiss. In any case, it has no bearing on his science.

Aside from Pehr  Björnbom , German climate scientist Hans von Storch also agreed with some of Salby’s findings. Hans von Storch is a Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg, and Director of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany.

He was interviewed in 2013 by Der Spiegel magazine:

SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?

Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.

SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?

Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.

SPIEGEL: That sounds quite embarrassing for your profession, if you have to go back and adjust your models to fit with reality…

Storch: Why? That's how the process of scientific discovery works. There is no last word in research, and that includes climate research. It's never the truth that we offer, but only our best possible approximation of reality. But that often gets forgotten in the way the public perceives and describes our work.

SPIEGEL: That doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Storch: Certainly the greatest mistake of climate researchers has been giving the impression that they are declaring the definitive truth. The end result is foolishness. It's not a bad thing to make mistakes and have to correct them. The only thing that was bad was acting beforehand as if we were infallible. By doing so, we have gambled away the most important asset we have as scientists: the public's trust. We went through something similar with deforestation, too -- and then we didn't hear much about the topic for a long time.

So why is the scientific community pushing climate change so hard? Anytime you see someone shooting down anyone who questions them, you have to be concerned that they are hiding something. As Shakespeare wrote, "Methinks thou dost protest too much!"

Real science is not afraid of being questioned for it either reveals the science to be false and so is discarded, or it results in further refining. Either way, it's a good thing. But scientists don't seem to see things like that anymore. For instance, if a scientist were to 'come out' as someone who thinks there may be an argument of Intelligent Design, he is immediately attacked and ends up being treated much like Professor Salby. Why? Because their entire myopic understanding of science would come completely apart if God actually exists. (This in spite of the fact that almost every significant scientist prior to 1950 believed in God.)

What is the fear here? I believe there is so much research money going into climate change, that scientists are terrified that it will stop if the truth came out. There are likely others on board too; others who have invested heavily in moving toward renewable energy, and who anticipate trillions of dollars will be spent on global warming initiatives with much of that money coming their way, and all of it coming from taxpayers.

Lord Christopher Monkton has a major conspiracy theory that suggests a formal, binding agreement on climate change is a serious step toward one-world government by unelected officials. You can google him if you want to pursue that theory.

I am somewhat concerned as to why it is happening but the near hysteria of global protests ought to be investigated as to who initiated and organized them, and what their connections are. All is not as it seems.

Sweden Loses 14,000 Migrants

‘Simply don't know where they are’: 14,000 

illegal migrants vanish, Swedish police say

© Janerik Henriksson / Reuters

About 14,000 illegal migrants, who were awaiting deportation, simply disappeared off the radar, Swedish police told local media, adding they “don’t know where these asylum seekers are.”

At the end of October, Swedish police asked to enforce deportation of at least 21,748 people. Of these, 14 140 people registered by police as 'wanted' have vanished, police told Swedish Aftonbladet tabloid newspaper.

"We simply don't know where they are," Patrik Engström, head of the national border police, said.

I'm sure this will be good for Sweden's astronomical rape rate. Good grief.

The rest of the individuals –at least 7,608 people – remain in refugee centers, are in custody, or are living in separate accommodation, awaiting deportation.

Swedish police are currently deploying most of its resources on carrying out ID checks after Sweden introduced temporary border controls to halt the influx of refugees and to screen those trying to enter the country illegally.

"It's a huge task and it is completely dependent on the police being allocated resources," said Engström.

In November, Sweden tightened asylum rules in a bid to control the immense influx of refugees coming from troubled regions of Africa and the Middle East. One of major changes was that Stockholm is now issuing temporary residence permits. In addition, the ages of children seeking for asylum will be medically verified and the right for family reunification will be strictly scrutinized, according to new measures.

Swedish authorities say they have welcomed more than 120,000 people since January. By the end of the year, up to 190,000 asylum seekers are expected to reach the country, more than doubling the number who came in 2014, when the Scandinavian country received about 81,000 refugees.

Sweden is the fourth country to re-establish border controls since the start of the migrant crisis this summer. In September, Germany, Austria, and Slovenia temporarily limited the free movement policy within the EU.

France Shuts Down 3 Mosques

3 French mosques closed in 1st major crackdown on places of worship after Paris attacks

French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve © Eric Gaillard / Reuters

French authorities have shut down three mosques in the past week as a part of a crackdown on "Islamist radicalization" launched after Paris terror attacks. This marked the first time such action has been taken against places of worship.

A major police raid on a mosque was conducted in the town of Lagny-sur-Marne east of Paris on Wednesday in the presence of the president of the Association of French Muslims, Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said in a statement.

The Wednesday raid resulted in nine people being placed under house arrest as they were considered to be “radicalized.” Twenty-two more were banned from leaving the country, French media reported.

Additionally, an individual who was described as (one) of the mosque’s “leaders” was immediately taken into custody after police seized his 9mm revolver, according to French media reports.

During the searches in the mosque, police officers found jihadist literature and a hard drive hidden in a wall, French media report. An undeclared Koran school was also discovered.

The mosque was consequently closed for fostering what the minister described as “Islamist radicalization.”

Two mosques were already closed last week on the same charges, Cazeneuve said Wednesday. One of them was in Gennevilliers, a northwestern suburb of Paris, and the other was in Lyon in southern France.

"[Police] operations are carried out against hate preachers and self-proclaimed imams," Cazeneuve said.

He added that such measures as mosque closures on radicalization charges had “never been implemented by any government before.”

At the same time, he stressed that “the state of emergency is still required.”

“This is terrorism that threatens liberties, not the state of emergency,” he said as quoted by France TV.

‘License to preach’: Major French Muslim group calls
 for imams to have permits http://on.rt.com/6xj7  

In mid-November, following the Paris terror attacks, Bernard Cazeneuve announced plans to close down mosques “where hate is preached.”

Any foreign preacher of hate “will be deported," he said at the time, adding that several mosques under investigation for inciting terrorism would “be shut down” if the accusations were proven to be true, AFP reported.

Since the state of emergency was declared in response to the November 13 attacks that killed 130 people, French police have conducted 2,235 raids, detaining 263 people and holding 232 of them in custody. A total of 330 people, monitored by intelligence services over their previous involvement in radical Islamist activities, were placed under house arrest.

Additionally, 334 weapons were seized in these raids, including 145 long-barreled guns and 34 military-grade arms, Cazeneuve told journalists.

"In 15 days we have seized one-third of the quantity of war-grade weapons that are normally seized in a year," he said.

Paris attacks mastermind boasted how easily he
slipped into EU disguised as refugee
report http://on.rt.com/6xtf

  

BRICS Bank Start-up to Begin Borrowing in Yuan and Other Non-USD Currencies

BRICS heads of state. Brazil's leader hidden behind Xi Jinping

© Paulo Whitaker / Reuters

The BRICS New Development Bank (NDB) could start operations by borrowing in the Chinese currency, according to the bank’s Vice President Vladimir Kazbekov. He says the bank will focus on loans in the national currencies of the bank’s potential customers.

“Considering the stability of the Chinese currency and the scale of the Chinese debt market, I think that one of the first steps in providing the New Development Bank with funds may be entering the Chinese market to borrow in yuan," Kazbekov said on Tuesday at the opening of a BRICS media summit in Beijing.

NDB was established by the BRICS countries Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa in 2014. Its main goal is to promote sustainable development projects within the BRICS complementing the World Bank. In July the bank opened operations in Shanghai with start-up capital of $50 billion.

On Monday, the Chinese yuan was included in the IMF Special Drawing Rights (SDR) joining the US dollar, euro, British pound and the Japanese yen.

See: Big Step for Chinese in Plan to Make Yuan World's Dominant Currency

Kazbekov said the NDB is examining ways of entering the financial markets of other BRICS members, Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa.

"We want to find new flexible instruments of lending, to significantly reduce the time to consider a loan, and try to actively use the model of private-public partnership," he added.

There might be a lack of resources for long-term projects without the active attraction of private capital, according to the NDB Vice President.