Friday, July 7, 2017

Haley Warns US May 'Go Our Own Path' On North Korea - Joseph Klein




by Joseph Klein


A tense emergency UN Security Council meeting puts the spotlight on China.




President Trump vowed that North Korea’s possession of an ICBM capable of reaching the United States "won't happen." It just happened. 

The United States confirmed that North Korea successfully test launched an intercontinental ballistic missile for the first time, said to be capable of reaching as far as Alaska. North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un said the missile was "a gift" to "American bastards" for the July 4th Independence Day celebration.

The first instinct of every U.S. administration, including President Trump’s, has been to go to the United Nations for what U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called “global action” against North Korea. Although increasingly stringent UN sanctions against the North Korean regime and its leaders have not worked in the past to change the rogue regime’s behavior, Secretary Tillerson is looking for even “stronger measures” from the UN Security Council. However, the Trump administration’s patience with the UN is running out.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley and her counterparts from Japan and South Korea requested an “emergency” UN Security Council meeting, which was held Wednesday afternoon. She warned in her remarks to the Security Council that North Korea’s “ICBM escalation requires an escalated diplomatic and economic response. Time is short. Action is required. The world is on notice. If we act together, we can still prevent a catastrophe, and we can rid the world of a grave threat. If we fail to act in a serious way, there will be a different response.”

Ambassador Haley told the Security Council that the U.S. planned to submit a new draft resolution in the coming days that “raises the international response in a way that is proportionate to North Korea’s new escalation.” While not prepared to talk about the details at this time, Ambassador Haley outlined a few possible elements of such a resolution. They include cutting off the major sources of hard currency to the North Korean regime, restricting the flow of oil to their military and their weapons programs, and increasing air and maritime restrictions.

All Security Council members, including even Russia, China and Bolivia, strongly condemned North Korea’s latest missile launch and its continued violations of successive Security Council resolutions. Several Security Council members joined the United States in supporting the idea of another, even stronger resolution, including France, the United Kingdom, Senegal and Ukraine. However, the majority of Security Council members preferred to wait and see.

With her usual directness, Ambassador Haley told the Security Council that the United States was prepared to go it alone if the global collective response to North Korea’s ICBM test launch was insufficient. “One of our capabilities lies with our considerable military forces,” Ambassador Haley said. “We will use them if we must, but we prefer not to have to go in that direction.”

In an effort to demonstrate such military resolve in advance of the Security Council meeting, the United States and South Korea launched ballistic missiles of their own in a drill.

Short of using military force, Ambassador Haley said there were other actions that the United States could take. One option in particular involves trade. “We have great capabilities in the area of trade,” Ambassador Haley declared. “President Trump has spoken repeatedly about this. I spoke with him at length about it this morning. There are countries that are allowing – even encouraging – trade with North Korea in violation of UN Security Council resolutions. Such countries would also like to continue their trade arrangements with the United States. That’s not going to happen. We will look at any country that chooses to do business with this outlaw regime. We will not have patience for stalling or talking our way down to a watered-down resolution.”

China was very much on Nikki Haley’s mind when she uttered those words. She pointed out that ninety percent of trade with North Korea is from China. Therefore, she reasoned, much of the burden of enforcing UN sanctions against North Korea rests with China. President Trump is clearly frustrated with what he perceives as China’s failure to rein in its trading partner. He had tweeted just hours prior to the Security Council meeting: “Trade between China and North Korea grew almost 40% in the first quarter. So much for China working with us - but we had to give it a try!”

Russia joined China in proposing what they called a “dual” freeze as part of a peaceful resolution to the crisis. Under this plan, North Korea would suspend testing nuclear devices and ballistic missiles while the U.S. and South Korea would suspend their large-scale joint military maneuvers. Both Russia and China criticized the U.S.’s deployment of the THAAD anti-ballistic missile defense system in South Korea and called for its cancellation.  Russia at one point referred to the missile that North Korea just tested as “mid-range,” which drew a sharp rebuke from Ambassador Haley.

The Russian ambassador refused to answer reporters’ questions as to whether Russia planned to veto the kind of tough new resolution that Nikki Haley is seeking. Ambassador Haley laid down a marker when, during her rebuttal remarks, she all but dared Russia or China to veto such a resolution and thereby show where they truly stand. “If you are happy with North Korea’s actions, veto it,” she said. “If you want to be a friend to North Korea, veto it. But if you see this as a threat, if you see this for what it is…then you need to stand strong and vote with the international community to strengthen sanctions on North Korea.”

Nothing that happens at the UN Security Council is likely to make any difference as far as North Korea is concerned. Watered down resolutions are all that can pass without at least one veto. And even those resolutions are routinely evaded. Only the exertion of strong American leadership stands any chance of  success in thwarting the rogue regime's escalating ambitions. Such leadership must be backed up by credible threats of economic pressure on countries doing business with North Korea and the use of military force against North Korea if necessary.

Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/267193/haley-warns-us-may-go-our-own-path-north-korea-joseph-klein

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

US missile defense may not protect against nukes - Chana Roberts




by Chana Roberts

Experts say US missile defense system is 'not there yet.' Expert: I would not say we are comfortably ahead of the threat.



The intercontinental ballistic missile Hwasong-14 is seen in this undated photo released b
The intercontinental ballistic missile Hwasong-14 is seen in this undated photo released b
KCNA
US missile defense systems may not protect against a North Korean nuclear attack, an expert in the field said Wednesday.

According to Global Security Program at the Unite of Concerned Scientists Co-director physicist David Wright, the $40 billion Ground-based Midcourse Defense System has only a 50% success rate.

"You simply wouldn’t rely on it," Wright told The Post. "It has been tested 18 times in the last 12 to 15 years, and even under the controlled circumstances of tests, it has failed half the times."

Though the Air Force in May did successfully launch an interceptor, that was the first time it had been tested against the type of missile North Korea tested earlier this week. And according to Wright, the system won't work well in an emergency, since it can't figure out which type of missiles Kim Jong-un will use.

The US currently has 36 ICBM interceptors — 32 in Alaska at Fort Greely and four in California at Vandenberg Air Force Base. The number is expected to increase to 44 by the end of 2017.

Meanwhile, Pentagon Spokesperson Navy Captain Jeff Davis said, "We do have confidence in our ability to defend against the limited threat, the nascent threat that is there."

"It's something we have mixed results on. But we also have an ability to shoot more than one interceptor."

"Over the next four years, the United States has to increase its current capacity of our deployed systems, aggressively push for more and faster deployment," Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance Founder Riki Ellison said.

One missile expert, John Schilling, said North Korea's nuclear missile development is proceeding faster than expected but "it will probably require another year or two of development before this missile can reliably and accurately hit high-value continental U.S. targets, particularly if fired under wartime conditions."

According to Phil Coyle, who served under the Clinton administration as the Pentagon's chief weapons tester and under Obama in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, "Three of the previous four [tests] had failed — that is a 75 percent failure rate."

He also said that even with the system's most recent success, "two of five is 40 percent. Forty percent is not a passing grade."

"These will take years and years — they are talking 2030. And meanwhile, North Korea keeps getting better and better. The problem is technology is just not providing us the solutions. There is no technical solution. There really isn’t a military solution to North Korea. We’ve just got to engage with North Korea."

Missile Defense Agency Vice Admiral James Syring said the US has "been on a journey over the last at least five to six years to improve the reliability of the entire [GMD] system."
"We are not there yet. I would not say we are comfortably ahead of the threat. I would say we are addressing the threat."


Chana Roberts

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/232089

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Democrats' Denial Dialectic - Lloyd Billingsley




by Lloyd Billingsley


The power of “no” trumps the people’s right to know about voter fraud.




“There’s absolutely no proof, no evidence of massive voter fraud in California or anywhere across the country,” California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, Los Angeles Democrat, proclaimed back in February. More recently, Padilla announced in a statement that he will block the federal effort to find evidence of voter fraud.

“I will not provide sensitive voter information to a commission that has already inaccurately passed judgment that millions of Californians voted illegally. California’s participation would only serve to legitimize the false and already debunked claims of massive voter fraud made by the President, the Vice President, and Mr. Kobach. The President's Commission is a waste of taxpayer money and a distraction from the real threats to the integrity of our elections today: aging voting systems and documented Russian interference in our elections.”

Padilla’s statement did not provide any of the “documented” Russian interference, but the author did go off on Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, vice chair of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. Padilla charged that Kobach, “has a long history of sponsoring discriminatory, anti-immigrant policies including voter suppression and racial profiling laws. His role as vice chair is proof that the ultimate goal of the commission is to enact policies that will result in the disenfranchisement of American citizens.”

In similar style, the Sacramento Bee editorialized that “there’s no evidence of widespread voter fraud.” Trump’s claim of millions of illegal votes is “baseless” and his concern for “election integrity” could be “taken more seriously if he would finally acknowledge the extent of Russian interference in the 2016 election and showed at least a little interest in making sure it doesn’t happen again.” And the stridently pro-Democrat publication opposed any effort to search for evidence of voter fraud.

California’s Secretary of State received nearly 1,000 election related complaints last year but the office now headed by Padilla finds not a single case of voting by someone in the country illegally. As it happens, there is evidence that illegals have voted in key elections.

In 1996 in Orange County, 721 illegals were registered to vote and 442 of them voted for Loretta Sanchez, the Democrat who narrowly defeated Republican Robert Dornan. He was the target of Bert Corona, a violent old-line Stalinist who opposed to Dornan’s strong anti-Communist stance. Corona was also the founder of Hermandad Mexicana Nacional, which registered the illegals who voted for Sanchez. In practical terms, Hermandad was a state-funded operation.

Corona shook down the California Department of Education for some $7 million in grants. CDE investigators Robert Cervantes and James Lindberg discovered that this money was not being used for citizenship classes and English language instruction. State education superintendent Delaine Eastin, a Bay Area Democrat, ignored the massive fraud and instead demoted the whistleblowers. Eastin is now running for governor of California but is not on record whether Hermandad is still getting state funds.

In March, when ICE director Thomas Homan came to California, Hermandad Mexicana organized the protest against him, featuring banners reading “no ban, no wall” and displaying a Muslim woman in a hijab alongside a Mexican farmworker with a red scarf over her face. The establishment media provided no background on Hermandad Mexicana, founder Bert Corona, and the massive rip-off of millions public funds on the watch of Delaine Eastin. Likewise, establishment media showed no curiosity whether Hermandad was still registering illegals to vote, as they did in 1996.

Democrats supported federal investigations into Russian election interference in 2016. With input from all intelligence agencies, those investigations have turned up no credible evidence that Russians colluded with Donald Trump to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. With voter fraud, on the other hand, the Democrats want to block investigators from even looking for the evidence in public records. 

In predictable style, they refuse to hand over voter information, maintain the Russia-Trump conspiracy theory, and attack Kris Koback as a racial profiler out to suppress the votes of American citizens. So voters nationwide, like the president, have good cause to wonder what California is trying to hide. And this is hardly the first time state democrats have tried to keep the people in the dark.

In 2012, four ballot measures on tax and spending measures were the subject of televised hearings in the Senate Governance and Finance Committee. Senate boss Darrell Steinberg pulled the plug on the live broadcast, denying voters statewide the opportunity to gain insights from the testimony, even as he proclaimed, “I pride myself on being open and transparent.”

For California’s Democrats the power of “no” overrides the people’s right to know. That’s the dialectic now on display from Alex Padilla and his media allies.


Lloyd Billingsley is the author of Barack ‘em Up: A Literary Investigation, and Bill of Writes: Dispatches from the Political Correctness Battlefield.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/267192/democrats-denial-dialectic-lloyd-billingsley

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Frau Merkel on the Warpath against Trump - Alex Alexiev




by Alex Alexiev

This is yet another disturbing case where the dominant power in the EU has disregarded the interests of its EU partners to curry favor with Putin.

Next week’s G-20 meeting in Hamburg promises to be more interesting than usual. The expected unhinged leftist crowds are already much in evidence and could be counted on for a dose of violence and turmoil. More seriously, this time the fireworks are more likely to come from inside the conference rooms than outside. In preparation for the event, the German chancellor Angela Merkel has already accused Trump of “Abshottung” (door closure or foreclosure) and promised to challenge him directly on a number of issues. Whether she already feels like the leader of the free world (as many pundits are trying to convince her that she actually is), or not is unclear, but she obviously has Trump in mind when she argues that “abshottung” from “climate change, terrorism and migration” is a huge mistake, or when she promises to conduct negotiations “so that they serve the Paris Agreements.” No wonder her party’s election platform for the first time does not mention America as Germany’s key ally and friend.

If there was any surprise in this, it came earlier when the German chancellor openly sided with a blatantly pro-Russian project called Nord Stream 2 that could seriously damage the European Union. Like Nord Stream 1, Nord Stream 2 is a Russian diversionary pipeline designed to bypass Ukraine and Eastern Europe, damage them financially, and enhance Putin’s political clout and the dependence of Western Europe on Gazprom. This was clearly seen as a provocation by the U.S. Senate, which voted 97 to 2 to impose sanctions on any company participating in this scheme. Yet, Angela Merkel and her socialist coalition partners, whose former party boss and current Putin lackey, Gerhard Schroeder, is the president of Nord Stream 2, promptly warned the U.S. to mind its own business. In doing that, Merkel, disregarded the vigorous protests of 13 Eastern European countries and those of the European Energy Union, which clearly cannot coexist with Nord Stream 2. This is yet another disturbing case where the dominant power in the EU has disregarded the interests of its EU partners to curry favor with Putin. Perhaps, somebody should have told Mrs. Merkel that blatantly disregarding the bipartisan will of the American Senate is never a smart idea on the part of somebody who still depends on the United States for its security.

Whatever the case, President Trump needs to be prepared for a hostile reception. It will help him to know a bit more about who Frau Merkel is as a politician and what exactly she stands for. So far, he has challenged her on Germany’s huge trade surplus with the United States, which is not smart and makes him look like a petty mercantilist. The reason for that is that while Germany does have a huge trade surplus with us, it is a relatively underdeveloped country in information technology, high tech, and financial services, where the U.S. can and does run circles around it. It could easily be proven, for instance, that when digital and financial services, licensing revenues, and investment returns are emphasized, the U.S. runs a much bigger surplus than the Germans do in trade.

The fact is that while Trump may not be quite right on the German trade surplus and its causes, Merkel’s 12-year rule in Germany has, for the most part, been unsuccessful, not to say disastrous. To start with, it was under Merkel’s leadership that Germany abruptly decided to ban nuclear power on the absurd assumption that the Fukushima disaster could repeat itself in Germany, a country that has never had a tsunami or an earthquake larger than 5 on the Richter scale. This irrational decision by the chancellor to do away with a legitimate industry that produced 25% of the country’s clean and inexpensive energy, apart from its dubious legality and lack of scientific and economic rationale, led to greater dependence on Russian gas and made inevitable the ‘energy transition’ (Energiewende) to renewable energy, whose disastrous consequences are only now coming into focus. Suffice it to say that the Germans already pay three times more than Americans (twice as much as the French) for their electricity, including a surcharge that is twice the market price of a kilowatt hour.

Bad as Merkel’s renewable folly is, it pales in comparison with her migrants debacle. Having opened the gates of Europe to unlimited immigration by mindlessly claiming that “asylum has no upper limit” and just as mindlessly repeating the mantra “we can do it,” Merkel created a fait accompli and expectations that could not possibly be met. More than that, by inviting and accepting what were essentially economic refugees seeking a better life as asylum seekers i.e. people traditionally persecuted for political or religious reasons, she de facto created a new right, the right to a better life, which has never existed in international law before.

This, in turn, guarantees that low-fertility Europe will be swamped by millions of rent-seeking Africans and Asians, who are mostly young and mostly male. The available statistics bear this out already. Asylum applications in the EU in 2015 and 2016 run some 1.3 million per year and there are additionally hundreds of thousands who do not bother to register. Moreover, even though very few of these migrants qualify for asylum, European authorities appear eager to recognize them as such. In 2016, 61% of the asylum requesters received refugee status or a subsidiary protection status. It is also the case that very few of those whose applications are turned down are deported. Once you make it to Europe, your chances of staying there are excellent, which means that the migrant wave is unlikely to subside soon.

There is yet another side to the migrants saga that receives little coverage in the politically-correct German media. After the initial euphoria of left-wing economists predicting a new Wirtschaftswunder (economic miracle) on account of the refugees, a sobering reality has set in.

The vast majority of migrants have neither work skills nor any German knowledge, which promises them long-term unemployment and welfare support for years. A year after the huge migrants wave hit Germany, industry had managed to hire only 54 migrants, while the cost of taking care of them is 20 billion euro per annum for as long as one can see. Add to this a 52.7% increase in migrant crime in 2016 vs 2015 and an ongoing epidemic of rapes and sexual assaults and Frau Merkel does not have all that much to be proud of. Mr. Trump may want to remind her of that too.


Alex Alexiev is chairman of the Center for Balkan and Black Sea Studies (cbbss.org) and editor of bulgariaanalytica.org. He tweets on national security at twitter.com/alexieff and could be reached at alexievalex4@gmail.com

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/frau_merkel_on_the_warpath_against_trump.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Democratic Party's Ominous Shift - Kimberly Bloom Jackson




by Kimberly Bloom Jackson

The political energy driving the Democratic Party today primarily comes from the Left’s dominance in academia, entertainment, and media. This affords them an unprecedented ability to influence what most people learn, see, and hear

Democrats have long believed they alone occupy the intellectual high ground, regardless of the issue. Recently, their party has undergone an ominous shift. Part of this involves their staunch refusal to engage in any meaningful debate of the issues -- considering everyone else as just a bunch of cultural infidels. This is a dangerous mindset, as it threatens the fundamental underpinnings of our civility, and thus the overall stability of America.

The political energy driving the Democratic Party today primarily comes from the Left’s dominance in academia, entertainment, and media. This affords them an unprecedented ability to influence what most people learn, see, and hear -- carefully controlling both the medium and the message to keep certain demographics increasingly mired in grievance, fear, and hate. At the heart of it all, of course, is identity politics, producing hotbeds of victim identities that form the basis for the incredibly divisive actions we’re now seeing.
  • Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters (CA) called the Trump administration a “bunch of scumbags” and on Twitter the #KremlinKlan. One of her staff added, “It’s white supremacy all over again.”
  • Phil Montang, an official with the Nebraska Democratic Party, was captured on audio railing against Republican Congressman Scalise (LA): “I’m glad he got shot. I wish he was f---ing dead.”
  • Madonna exclaimed at the Women’s March in Washington, D.C., “Yes, I’m angry. Yes, I am outraged. Yes, I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.”
  • Comedian Kathy Gifford posed with a mock decapitated head of President Trump, willingly associating herself with ISIS style propaganda.
  • New York’s Shakespeare in the Park staged a production of Julius Caesar with a Donald Trump look-alike playing Caesar. He was violently stabbed to death by senators in a grotesquely graphic and bloody scene for everyone and their children to see.
None of these examples are about free speech or artistic expression. They’re reflections of extreme intolerance and absolute refusal to accept the outcome of an election. Such public manifestations serve only to feed a political environment already overflowing with agitators propagating violent fantasies about taking down the President by any means possible.

Before the 2016 Presidential election, a video aired showing how Democratic operatives paid people to pick fights at Trump rallies to create a perception of right-winged anarchy, a tactic called “bird-dogging.” Later, Wikileaks revealed that bird-dogging was approved by Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook in a July 4, 2015 email. This all coincided with a DNC plan to cite “incidences of violence” in order to create the perception that “Trump is dangerous.” Consequently, violent assaults against Trump supporters skyrocketed.
Joining student activists, the militant group antifa successfully prevented conservative authors from speaking on college campuses. The recent highly destructive riot at UC Berkeley stands as a prime example. Shamefully, Democrat Congresswoman Val Deming (FL) described the Berkeley calamity as “a beautiful sight.”

With the Left now openly glorifying political violence, it wasn’t surprising to see hostilities jump to the next level with the recent targeted assassination attempt of Republicans at a congressional baseball outing, leaving several seriously wounded. Later that day, Republican Claudia Tenney (NY) received an ominous email stating, “One down, 216 to go.” 

Unfortunately, even with Republican Congressman Steve Scalise (LA) still suffering in the hospital from the assassination attempt, prominent Democrats are going ahead with their plans to ratchet-up the political rhetoric by increasing their usage of an old term associated with overthrowing governments – “resistance.” To capitalize on this, the Democratic National Committee launched “Resistance of Summer,” a series of anti-Trump events designed to attract impressionable activist-voters to the DNC’s inflammatory rhetoric and then turn them out into the streets. Even some of the party’s more high-profile individuals are getting in on the action.
  • Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate Tim Kaine (VA) Tweeted, “Democrats have to fight in the streets against Trump.”
  • Loretta Lynch, former Attorney General under President Obama, made an impassioned video plea that was posted on the US Senate Democrats’ Facebook page:
“I know it’s a time of concern for people who see our rights being assailed, being trampled on and even being rolled back. I know that this is difficult, but I remind you that this has never been easy. We have always had to work to move this country forward to achieve the great ideals of our Founding Fathers. It has been people, individuals who have banded together, ordinary people who simply saw what needed to be done and came together and supported those ideals, who have made the difference. They’ve marched, they’ve bled, and yes, some of them died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before. We can do this again.”
Lynch’s attempt to distort history with improper context while stoking the flames of revolution is pure Saul Alinsky. What Lynch and others of her ilk always fail to mention is that our Founders, while very outspoken, were incredibly tolerant individuals of honorable character who understood and, more importantly, practiced the art of debate and diplomacy. Unlike Lynch and others, they didn’t encourage violence as a way to resolve every little issue that didn’t go their way.

Nevertheless, perhaps the most disturbing thing about all of these statements and events is that they collectively work to inform a desperate sociopolitical impatience on the part of the Left that clearly seeks to effect a quicker change in governance than is allowed through proper discourse, demonstrating at the very least their tacit approval of the use of such violent rhetoric and tactics. Moreover, after further analysis, it becomes difficult to ignore certain glaring historical similarities to how this rhetoric and tactics has been previously used to control certain demographics of the American populace.

This same approach combining violent rhetoric and actual violence was commonly used by the pro-slavery Democratic Party leading up to the Civil War. But the dark and sordid history of the Left’s violence didn’t end there. Later, from 1882 to 1964, the Ku Klux Klan -- formally organized by the Democratic Party in 1866 -- was used to help gain control of the electorate through intimidation and terror, ending with an estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,279 white Republicans being lynched.

An 1868 cartoon published in the Tuscaloosa, Alabama newspaper The Independent Monitor, threatening the lynching of carpetbaggers by the Ku Klux Klan (source)

One could also argue alarming similarities are beginning to appear between the way in which the Left and their leadership in the Democratic Party are acting today and the way radical Democrats acted in 1861 when Abraham Lincoln was elected. And we all know what happened to Lincoln.

Just as then, many today are in denial about the seed of hatred that is being deliberately planted by the Left. In 1861, it was Lincoln who drew the ire of the Democrats. They loathed his vision for America. Today, the same can be said of President Trump. This is why the Left is so enraged over him. He’s all about the Constitution and rule of law -- the archenemy of the Left and its relentless march for absolute power. As long as Trump is in the White House, the Democratic party will never stand down.

All things considered, it would be wise to reacquaint ourselves with America’s political history -- all of it. In the meantime, we should start taking Democrats more seriously.


Kimberly Bloom Jackson is a cultural/media anthropologist and author of Hollywood’s White Identity Crisis: Inside the Movie and TV Industry’s Dash to Diversity and What It Means for America (Summer 2017). She can be found at SnoopingAnthropologist.com.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/the_democratic_partys_ominous_shift.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Israel's interests will be factored into future Syria deals, Russian diplomat says - Naama Lanski and Israel Hayom Staff




by Naama Lanski and Israel Hayom Staff

Israel and Russia are "in the same boat" against terrorism, says Russian deputy ambassador to Israel



Russian Deputy Ambassador to Israel Alexey Drobinin
|
Photo credit: Moshe Shai



Naama Lanski and Israel Hayom Staff

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=43651

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The moral emperor has no clothes - Lital Shemesh




by Lital Shemesh

While the U.K. routinely criticizes the morality of the Israel Defense Forces and continues to fund countless organizations that condemn Israel, its own soldiers and government are allegedly covering up potential war crimes.


This story never made the headlines in Israel, but it has sent shock waves throughout Britain: Members of the British army's elite Special Air Service are suspected of murdering in cold blood no fewer than 52 unarmed Afghani citizens. According to the allegations, soldiers from the unit murdered civilians during raids on their homes and then planted weapons at the scene to make it look like they were Taliban insurgents. 

The charges include evidence tampering, cuffing and hooding innocent civilians and falsifying mission reports. The Times reported that soldiers adopted a "shoot-to-kill" policy and in many cases relied on flawed intelligence. The classified investigation by Britain's Royal Military Police has been underway for two years and, until now, the British government has tried to conceal the details of the investigation from the general public both domestically and abroad.

This is one of the country's biggest investigations, but the British Defense Ministry ordered RMP officers to conclude the investigation by this summer. So the detectives, who had been looking into 52 alleged killings, are now investigating only one incident from 2011. How convenient. A military source told The Times that the Defense Ministry wanted to "avoid any of the detail of the accusations getting into the press and thereby undermining, in their view, national security, public trust [and] work with allies."

So while the U.K. routinely criticizes the morality of the Israel Defense Forces and continues to fund countless organizations that condemn Israel, its own soldiers and government are allegedly covering up potential war crimes. According to a report by NGO Monitor, over the past four years, the British government has directly and indirectly transferred more than 2 million shekels to the NGO Gisha, which works to advance Palestinian rights. The head of Gisha recently participated in a BDS conference at the United Nations.

The report also reveals that over the last three years, 2 million shekels have been directly transferred by the British embassy to an NGO named Terrestrial Jerusalem, which works to "identify and track the full spectrum of developments in Jerusalem." Millions of shekels were also transferred to NGOs Yesh Din, Breaking the Silence and Zochrot.

In addition to this carnival of funds, the British government also sends money to the Norwegian Refugee Council, which seeks to influence Israeli policy and circumvent democratic mechanisms in Israel. Some of the organizations participating in these subversive efforts against Israel also publicly call to intensify the boycotts against the Jewish state.

It is important to stress that the IDF is expected to investigate all violations and operate in accordance with the laws of war and its own ethical code. But it stands to reason that if the kind of conduct that is currently being investigated in Britain were to be discovered here in Israel, it would not be tolerated and certainly wouldn't be swept elegantly under the rug by the military or the state. By all means then, tell us more about the morally superior country that spearheads the majority of lawsuits against IDF soldiers and spends millions on anti-Israel organizations. Behold the worst type of hypocrisy.



Lital Shemesh

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=19369

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Germany's Quest for 'Liberal' Islam - Vijeta Uniyal




by Vijeta Uniyal

The liberal utopian dream quickly turned into an Islamist nightmare.

  • However, the media-driven PR campaign backfired as the news of the opening of the Berlin 'liberal mosque' reached Muslim communities in Germany and abroad. The liberal utopian dream quickly turned into an Islamist nightmare.
  • Why do Muslim organizations in Germany fail to mobilize within their communities and denounce Islamist terrorism? Because, if there really is a belief that "international terrorism should not be depicted as a problem belonging to Muslims alone" this view seems to indicate that, in general, Muslims do not see it as their problem.
The newly unveiled 'liberal mosque' in Berlin was supposed to showcase a 'gentler' Islam. An Islam that could be reformed and modernized while it emerges as the dominant demographic force in Europe. German public broadcaster Deutsche Welle touted the opening of the mosque as a "world event in the heart of Berlin."

"Everyone is welcome at Berlin's Ibn Rushd-Goethe Mosque," Deutsche Welle wrote, announcing the grand opening last month. "Women and men shall pray together and preach together at the mosque, while the Koran is to be interpreted 'historically and critically.'"

German reporters and press photographers, eager to give glowing coverage, thronged to witness the mosque's opening on July 16 and easily outnumbered the handful of Muslim worshipers. Deutsche Welle reported: "fervent enthusiasm in the media and political realm."

"For me there is no contradiction in being a Muslim and a feminist at the same time," Seyran Ates, the mosque's female imam told the German reporters.

"With Islam against Islamism," wrote Germany's leading weekly Der Spiegel. "Society in general will lionize [Imam Ates] as the long-awaited voice of Muslims that speaks clearly against Islamist terror," prophesied another German weekly, Die Zeit.

The Washington Post, not to be outdone by German newspapers, hailed the mosque's female founder Ates for "staging a feminist revolution of the Muslim faith."

In what can only be described as one-way multiculturalism, a Protestant church in Berlin's Moabit district had vacated its prayer hall to make way for this new mosque.


Prayers at the opening of the Ibn-Rushd-Goethe Mosque in Berlin, Germany on June 16, 2017. Seyran Ates, the mosque's female imam, is pictured in the second row, wearing a white robe. (Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

However, the media-driven PR campaign backfired, as the news of the opening of the Berlin 'liberal mosque' reached Muslim communities in Germany and abroad. The liberal utopian dream quickly turned into an Islamist nightmare. Islamic fanatics from near and far started flooding the Berlin mosque with death threats. Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the foremost authority on Sunni Islam, issued a fatwa forbidding the 'liberal mosque.'

The British newspaper The Guardian reported:
[The mosque's Imam Ates] said she had received "300 emails per day encouraging me to carry on", including from as far away as Australia and Algeria, but also "3,000 emails a day full of hate", some of them including death threats.
Egypt's Dar al-Ifta al-Masriyyah, a state-run Islamic institution assigned to issue religious edicts, issued a statement on Monday declaring that the Ibn Rushd-Goethe mosque's practice of men and women praying side by side was incompatible with Islam, while the legal department of Egypt's al-Azhar university reacted to news from Berlin with a fatwa on the foundation of liberal mosques per se.
After countless death threats, the newspapers reached out to Aiman Mazyek, head of the Central Council of Muslims. He shrugged his shoulders and said there were 2100 mosques in Germany and he "doesn't need to comment on each and every one of them." As the Berlin-based newspaper Der Tagesspiegel reported this week, the 'liberal'

Mosque's Iman was finally granted "around-the-clock heightened police protection."


Within days, this was the second establishment-backed project devised to spruce up the image of Islam in Germany, to go up in flames.

Recently, after dragging its feet for years, the Central Council of Muslims in Germany had agreed to call a march against Islamist terror. The Muslim organization boasted 10,000 registered participants for the "Not with us -- Muslims and friends against violence and terror" rally, scheduled for June 17 in Cologne. On the much awaited day, only a few hundred people turned up, many of them ordinary Germans flanked by a huge media entourage. "Many Turkish weddings are larger than this demonstration," wrote Robin Alexander, columnist in Die Welt.

Germany's largest Islamic organization, the Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs, DITIB, decided to skip the anti-terror demonstration. DITIB stated that Muslims fasting in Ramadan cannot be expected to "march and demonstrate for hours." DITIB controls about 900 mosques in Germany and has 800,000 members.

The German daily, Die Welt, reported on DITIB General Secretary Bekir Alboga's stated reason behind their withdrawal from the anti-terror march:
"We Muslims are striving to feel the spirituality of the special month that gives us power for the rest of the year." Through the daily Quran recitation, fasting and helping the needy -- in addition to the physical exertion from such a demonstration -- political initiatives such as the planned anti-terrorism march are minimized during Ramadan.
"Had we been informed early enough about the rally and its date we would have suggested planning it for after the Ramadan and roping in other Muslim -- and also non-Muslim organizations -- because international terrorism should not be depicted as a problem belonging to Muslims alone."
DITIB evidently did not want to divert fasting Muslims away from their spiritual pursuits, but it had no problem using its mosques and preachers to spy in Germany on behalf of Turkey's Erdogan regime. In January, DITIB officials admitted that their preachers acted as informants for the Turkish regime.

This is not the first time in Germany that Muslim leaders thwarted an "anti-terror march". The so-called "vigil of Muslims" at Berlin's Brandenburg Gate, after the Islamist terror attack on the Paris offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in January 2015, was also apparently a disappointment. As it turned out, the "vigil" was not even "Muslim". It had been financed and stage-managed from the chancellery of Angela Merkel. As Die Welt revealed:
"That time, too, painfully few Muslims turned out. It later emerged that that Muslim organizations only called the vigil after the initiative of a staffer from Chancellor's office and gentle pressure from the Minister of Interior. The expenses of the 'Muslim vigil' were borne by the Christian Democratic and Social Democratic Parties."
Why do Muslim organizations in Germany fail to mobilize within their communities and denounce Islamist terrorism? Because, if there really is a belief that "international terrorism should not be depicted as a problem belonging to Muslims alone" this view seems to indicate that, in general, Muslims do not see it as their problem.

The Turkish-Islamic organization DITIB would, it seems, prefer to see Christian, Hindu and Jewish organizations address the non-existent problem of terrorism within their communities, than to address the real issue of radicalization of youth within its own congregations or the recruitment by Islamists insides its mosques.

Do not, however, expect the German state to make the Muslim leadership responsible for its failings. The Merkel government continues to hand over millions of euros to DITIB despite what critics regard as behavior that is "unacceptable."

These stage-managed campaigns to fix the image of Islam in Germany come at an interesting time. With less than three months until the German general election, Chancellor Merkel's government, with her career at stake, is probably hesitant to take on Islamic organizations with ability to mobilize the "Muslim vote". Last year's state election in Berlin already saw such a mobilization.

The September election will effectively be a referendum on Merkel's "open door" migrant policy. The media's peddling the liberal, gentler Islam will definitely help ease the German voters' anxiety, given the ongoing demographic transformation of the country in the wake of the continued mass-migration from Arab and Muslim countries.

Merkel and Germany's establishment have their ground game covered ahead of the election, and know full well where their political interests lie. The question is, do the German voters know where their best interests lie?

Vijeta Uniyal, a journalist and news analyst, is based in Germany.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10629/germany-liberal-islam

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Will El País Stop Its "Spanish Inquisition"? - Masha Gabriel




by Masha Gabriel

Ismail Haniyeh, a senior official of Hamas -- was referred to by El País as "moderate" and "pragmatic," while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was described by the paper as the leader of a "radical" and "extremist" government.

  • The paper's opinion section has grown increasingly slanted, with more and more pieces penned by members of blatantly anti-Israel organizations, falsely presented as neutral observers of the conflict.
  • In spite of numerous pleas to El País, it is only on rare occasions that it has issued corrections to its repeated factual errors and lack of historical context. This indicates that it is not oversight at work, but rather a purposeful effort to defame and delegitimize the Jewish state -- in other words, anti-Semitism.
Over the past year, Spain's flagship newspaper, El País, has reemerged as the anti-Israel publication that it used to be. Until 2009, when it changed its approach to coverage of the Middle East, El País was so openly hostile to the Jewish state that 14 members of the U.S. Congress sent a letter to then-Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, to express concern over the systematic publication of "articles and cartoons conveying crude anti-Semitic canards and stereotypes" in the pages of El País.
That year, the paper began to present a more balanced view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and even ceased the practice of referring to Tel Aviv -- rather than Jerusalem -- as the Israeli capital. It continued in this vein for the next seven years.

In 2016, however, El País reverted to its old ways, as the following three examples illustrate:
  • Leila Khaled, a member of the terrorist organization the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) – notorious for taking part in the August 29, 1969 hijacking of TWA Flight 840 on its way from Rome to Tel Aviv, and in the September 6, 1970 attempted hijacking of El Al Flight 219 from Amsterdam to New York – was described by El País as someone who came from "a traumatic life experience: the occupation, which, when she was a child in 1948 [the establishment of the state of Israel], expelled her and her family from Haifa," along with "millions of refugees who were forced to leave their homes."
  • Ismail Haniyeh, a senior official of Hamas, the terrorist organization that controls the Gaza Strip, was referred to by El País as "moderate" and "pragmatic," while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was described by the paper as the leader of a "radical" and "extremist" government.
  • It also claimed that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "derives from the occupation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank" and "subsequent blockade of the Gaza Strip," and that since the Six-Day War in 1967, "Israel hasn't stopped colonizing."

Ismail Haniyeh, a senior official of Hamas, the terrorist organization that controls the Gaza Strip, was referred to by El País as "moderate" and "pragmatic," while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was described by the paper as the leader of a "radical" and "extremist" government.

To commemorate last year's Israeli Independence Day -- on May 12, 2016 -- El País devoted many news pieces and features to the 49th anniversary of the "occupation," with no quotes from Israelis, other than those who expressed harsh criticism of their own country.

The following month, on June 30, 2016, Hallel Yaffa Ariel, a 13-year-old Israeli girl, was stabbed to death by a Palestinian terrorist who broke into her bedroom. El País headlined its coverage of the senseless slaughter: "The ravages of the occupation." A separate story on the attack was titled: "Palestinian stabs a 13-year-old settler in her sleep."

After Revista De Medio Oriente, the Spanish site of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), contacted El País to alert it to the fact that calling Ariel a "settler" in this context was a form of dehumanization, the headline was changed to: "A Palestinian kills a 13-year-old Israeli girl in a settlement." In each case, the implication was that it was the victim's status and location that was responsible for her death. In neither instance was her murderer called a terrorist.

Mere days earlier, a cartoon accompanying an op-ed praising the controversial Israel NGO Breaking the Silence – comprised of IDF veterans whose claims that the Israeli army regularly commits war crimes are not only disputed, but repeatedly have been proven false – is reminiscent of images used by the Nazis.


An El País cartoon, accompanying an op-ed praising the controversial Israel NGO Breaking the Silence, is reminiscent of images used by the Nazis.

In general, the paper's opinion section has grown increasingly slanted, with more and more pieces penned by members of blatantly anti-Israel organizations, falsely presented as neutral observers of the conflict. One of these articles was even tagged with a request that readers donate money to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).

Another op-ed particularly worthy of note insinuated that all problems in the Middle East -- including the theocracy in Iran, "jihadist madness," "hatred of the West," the Syrian civil war, the widening of the Sunni-Shiite divide, "Erdogan's despotism" in Turkey and the "end of Kurdish people" -- can be traced to Zionism.

In spite of CAMERA's numerous pleas to El País, it is only on rare occasions that it has issued corrections to its repeated factual errors and lack of historical context. This indicates that it is not oversight at work, but rather a purposeful effort to defame and delegitimize the Jewish state -- in other words, anti-Semitism.

El País is not alone in this practice, which is common in the Spanish-language media. However, since it is the most widely read newspaper among Spanish-speakers, with an edition in the United States, as well -- and as Spanish is the second-most spoken language in the world -- the misleading message that fills its pages on a daily basis is extremely dangerous.

The occasional op-ed presenting a more balanced view -- or isolated feature highlighting successful Israeli start-ups and agri-tech -- cannot begin to counter the paper's constant onslaught against the Jewish state, which extends far beyond Spain's borders. El País must be held accountable.

The time is ripe for members of the U.S. Congress to express renewed concern over the paper's anti-Semitic leanings, by pointing them out to Spain's current prime minister, Mariano Rajoy Brey.

Masha Gabriel is the director of Revista De Medio Oriente, the Spanish website of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA).

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10608/el-pais-spain-israel

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The ADL's Belated Acknowledgement of Left-Wing Anti-Semitism - Ari Lieberman




by Ari Lieberman


In his anti-Trump, pro-left zeal, Greenblatt has championed various extremist causes and has done so to the detriment of the organization he purports to represent.




It would be an understatement to characterize the Anti-Defamation League’s Jonathan Greenblatt as one of Trump’s shrillest critics. The ADL’s chief executive officer and Obama crony has distinguished himself in this category. In his anti-Trump, pro-left zeal, Greenblatt has championed various extremist causes and has done so to the detriment of the organization he purports to represent.

The ADL’s primary mission is to combat anti-Semitism and xenophobia but under Greenblatt’s stewardship, the ADL has lost its way and transformed itself into a partisan bastion of radical activism. The ADL can most effectively carry out its mission when it acts in a non-partisan manner and no one understood this concept better than Greenblatt’s predecessor, Abe Foxman. Greenblatt, however, has demonstrated nothing but contempt for this principle. Worse yet, Greenblatt has advocated positions harmful to Jewry and actually endorsed or quasi-endorsed entities and individuals whose entrenched anti-Israel and anti-Semitic bona fides are well known and a matter of public record.

Despite his close association with the rabidly anti-Semitic Louis Farrakhan, and viscerally anti-Israel congressional voting record, Greenblatt shockingly endorsed Representative Keith Ellison’s (D-MN) bid to lead the Democratic National Committee and referred to him as a “man of good character.” The ADL was later forced to retract its endorsement following the revelation of an embarrassing audio in which Ellison was heard endorsing a common anti-Semitic trope (often repeated by the hard right and hard left) about Jewish influence over American politics. But even in the absence of that damning audio, Ellison’s anti-Semitic credentials were so evident and so glaring that all but the most myopic or most dishonest acknowledged his entrenched bigotry.

The latest example of Greenblatt’s misguided political agenda was his shameful support for Linda Sarsour, a rancid Jew-hater of the first order and a poster child for “new anti-Semitism,” or anti-Semitism associated with the hard left. According to Sarsour, there is “nothing creepier than Zionism” and Zionism and feminism are incompatible, a bizarre belief considering that Israel is a recognized leader in women’s rights whereas the Muslim world is deeply misogynistic and mired in medieval backwardness.

Sarsour is also a proponent of Sharia (which requires four men to witness a rape to sustain a conviction) and is on record praising Saudi Arabia (which executes gays). Her views on free speech are even more odious. Her twitter feed was laced with various incriminating comments (which have been deleted in an effort to rebrand her image) but the one that stands out most was her public desire to rip out the vaginas of women with whom she disagreed. One of those women happened to have been a victim of female genital mutilation, a fact known to Sarsour.

Despite her deeply anti-Semitic views (and lack of public health credentials) Sarsour was inexplicably invited to give the commencement address at the City University of New York’s School of Public Health. Jewish leaders voiced their strong opposition to Sarsour and a group of approximately 100 Holocaust survivors wrote a letter to Governor Andrew Cuomo asking him to rescind the invitation. But Greenblatt, ever the contrarian, supported Sarsour, framing the issue as one of First Amendment Rights and free speech. I doubt he would have exhibited the same level of magnanimity toward former KKK leader David Duke.

Greenblatt’s acerbic record in combatting anti-Semitism emanating from the hard left has caught the attention of prominent individuals who rightfully believe that his deleterious advocacy on behalf of anti-Semitic personalities and causes has caused immeasurable harm. Alex VanNess, director of the Middle East Peace & Security Project at The Center for Security Policy, noted that Greenblatt’s partisanship “is turning the ADL into a shell of its former self; if it goes on much longer, the group’s credibility may never recover.” FrontPageMagazine’s Daniel Greenfield went one step further noting that “the ADL [under Greenblatt] is no longer just whitewashing anti-Semitism. It’s giving it a platform and a voice.”

The latest observer to note the ADL’s destructive policies under Greenblatt is Tablet’s James Kirchick. In a lengthy but illuminating piece appropriately titled “On Linda Sarsour’s Politics of Hate and the Pathos of Her Jewish Enablers,” Kirchick subjects Greenblatt to scathing criticism. He points out that while Sarsour certainly had a First Amendment right to spew her hate, the “ADL was under no obligation to defend a Jew-baiting, demagogic, foul-mouthed, sectarian bully.”

Kirchick’s stinging rebuke proved too much to bear for Greenblatt who issued a rebuttal just two days later where he somewhat pathetically tried to trump up his pro-Jewish bona fides and advocacy. If that was in fact his aim, he failed miserably. Perhaps cognizant of his botched effort, Greenblatt gave it a second go, publishing an article in Time Magazine where he warns us that anti-Semitism is creeping into progressivism and segments of the political left. How prescient of him to acknowledge a fact that most of us recognized decades ago. With the likes of Keith Ellison and Linda Sarsour at the helm, today’s progressive left is infected with Jew-hate from head to toe, and Greenblatt’s miraculous epiphany is simply a case of too little, too late. 

Ari Lieberman is an attorney and former prosecutor who has authored numerous articles and publications on matters concerning the Middle East and is considered an authority on geo-political and military developments affecting the region.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/267191/adls-belated-acknowledgement-left-wing-anti-ari-lieberman

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.