Senator Cotton Defends Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran

/in , , , /by

We posted several times this week on the controversy that erupted following  publication of letter on Monday, March 9th, 2014, authored by Senator Tom Cotton (R-AK) and signed by 46 other Republican colleagues that was tweeted to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Seven Republican Senators for various reasons declined to do so.  It drew the ire of the President, Secretary of State Kerry and most Democratic Senators.  It triggered several White House website “We the People” website petition campaigns. One requested charges of “treason” be filed while the other accused Sen. Cotton and the 46 Republican signatories of violating the 1799 Logan Act suggesting they could be sued for illegally conducting foreign relations when Members of Congress are exempt from the hoary law. Further, both sides of the aisle have done so historically, including then Senators Kerry and Biden, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. That didn’t stop some media like the New York Daily News and others from suggesting Republican signatories of the Cotton Letter were acting in a traitorous manner in an editorial  and front page headline, “GOPers Sabotage Bam Nuke Deal”.

The letter  has been called “mutinous” by a former Army General cited by the Washington Post. Politico blamed Sen. Cotton for “getting us a hard-line Supreme Ruler.” President Obama found it “somewhat ironic” that the Cotton letter may have aligned them with so-called hardliner opposition in Iran to the nuclear deal. Others contended that the letter was “ misguided”  and ”disrespectful” of the Presidential perogatives under our Constitution for negotiations of treaties and executive agreements. In our most recent post on the controversy on Friday, we wrote:

Two independent legal experts confirmed the Constitutional requirements for review of foreign treaties and Congressional executive agreements. Sen. Cotton’s letter also pointed out that any executive order signed by the President may not survive past the end of his term in 22 months and might be modified or terminated for cause by any successor. That raised a question of why the Memorandum of Understanding was non-binding. That provoked responses from both Foreign Minister Zarif and Supreme Ruler Ayatollah Khamenei.  While the latter railed in rhetoric about how the GOP initiative reflected “the disintegration of the US” and why our representations can’t be trusted and laughing at the State Department citing Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism. It was left to Foreign Minister Zarif, to reveal that Congress wouldn’t have to approve anything saying: “The executive agreement was not bilateral but rather multi-lateral with the rest of the Permanent Members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany, subject to a resolution of the Security Council.”

Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu wrote in a Jewish Press article published today, “U.N. Security Council’s lifting of sanctions and endorsement of a deal might make Congress irrelevant.” He then cites the observation of Omri Ceren, Communications Director for the Washington, DC-based The Israel Project:

The letter forced the Administration to explain why they’re icing Congress out of Iran negotiations, and now that explanation has ignited a firestorm. The administration looks like it intentionally chose a weaker, non-binding arrangement, rather than a treaty, to avoid Senate oversight.

Ken Timmerman, whose FrontPageMagazine article, we cited noted the reason for Zarif’s and presumably the Administration position:

The Obama administration has told Congress that it won’t submit the nuclear agreement with Iran for Congressional approval, but now Zarif is saying that it will be submitted to the United Nations, to form the basis of a United Nations Security Council resolution, presumably aimed at lifting UN sanctions on Iran.

That prompted Sen. Coker (R-TN) and Foreign Relations Senate Committee chair co-sponsor of The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 to write President Obama Thursday:

There are now reports that your administration is contemplating taking an agreement, or aspects of it, to the United Nations Security Council for a vote.

Enabling the United Nations to consider an agreement or portions of it, while simultaneously threatening to veto legislation that would enable Congress to do the same, is a direct affront to the American people and seeks to undermine Congress’s appropriate role.

bill bennetSen. Cotton was interviewed on Bill Bennett’s Morning in America program on Wednesday, March 11th, 2014 in the midst of the continuing controversy. He presented the salient background and rationale for the letter.  Among points regarding his letter he made during the interview were:

He indicated that the letter took shape following Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s address to a Joint Meeting of Congress that, in his opinion, raised questions about what sort of deal the Administration was entering into among both his Republican and many Democratic colleagues, as it did not preclude Iran from achieving a nuclear capability.

His letter was directed at informing Iran’s leaders of the Constitutional authorities for Senate review of foreign treaties and executive agreements and that they may be terminated by end of President Obama’s term or modified by succeeding Presidents or Congress under existing related sanctions legislation.  He thought that the response from Iran’s foreign minister reflected his lack of understanding of Congressional review and ratification  requirements as regarding any Memorandum of Understanding on Iran’s nuclear program that the US P5+1 might enter into.

He illustrated the ability of President to rescind executive agreements of predecessors with reference to the 2004 letter of former President Bush to the late Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon reaffirming Israel’s rights under UN Resolution 242 to “secure and defensible” borders and that Jerusalem was Israel’s undivided capital. President Obama, according to Sen. Cotton, rescinded that executive agreement by suggesting that Israel might divide Jerusalem along the lines of the pre-1967 1949 Armistice Line.

The President’s objective, endeavoring to conclude so-called verifiable agreements on Iran’s nuclear agreements in their current form, would be a bad deal as reflecting in Israeli Prime Minister’s address comments before a Joint Meeting of Congress on March 3rd as it could allow Iran to continue developing a nuclear capability, not preclude it.

He suggested that President Obama’s motivation for pushing for the Iran nuclear deal was to achieve a strategic rapprochement with Iran. This despite the Islamic Republic cited by our State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism. Among specific examples cite by Cotton during the interview  were the 1979 US Embassy hostage taking and terrorist attacks by proxies  over several decades that resulted in deaths and injuries to hundreds of American diplomats and service personnel in Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

On the Matter of the Administration’s new Authorization for the Use of Military Power submitted to the Senate, he called it seriously restrictive. He pointed to the collapse of Iraq and rise of the Islamic State following the Administration’s failure to conclude a status of forces agreement with Iraq on the termination of the Iraq War in 2011.

When asked about Iran’s involvement in the current battle for Tikrit with Iraq national security forces and Iranian controlled Shia Militia, Cotton noted the role of the Quds Force, a combination of Special Forces and its CIA and its ubiquitous commander Qassem Suleymani. He accused Suleymani’s Quds Force of involvement in American casualties in both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. It also reflected Iran’s rapidly expanding sphere of influence over four Arab countries in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and more recently, Yemen.

Sen. Cotton’s Bennett program interview came just before revelations about the implications of Foreign Minister Zarif’s remarks suggesting the non-binding Memo of Understanding reflected resort to UN approval of any appraisal arising from the multilateral negotiations with the P5+1. You may listen to the Bennett interview with Sen. Cotton, here.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is courtesy of CNN.

U.S. Senate Investigating Administration Funding of anti-Netanyahu V15 Campaign

/in , , , , /by

As the Israeli Knesset election looms on March 17th Fox News reported that the bi-partisan U.S. Senate Permanent Investigations Subcommittee of Homeland Security and Government Affairs  may be engaged in investigating Administration funding of  OneVoice. It is an NGO linked to the Israel-based V15 anti-Netanyahu field effort headed by veteran Obama Campaign official Jeremy Bird.  The Fox report noted:

A powerful U.S. Senate investigatory committee has launched a bipartisan probe into an American nonprofit’s funding of efforts to oust Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after the Obama administration’s State Department gave the nonprofit taxpayer-funded grants, a source with knowledge of the panel’s activities told FoxNews.com.

The fact that both Democratic and Republican sides of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations have signed off on the probe could be seen as a rebuke to President Obama, who has had a well-documented adversarial relationship with the Israeli leader.

The development comes as Netanyahu told Israel’s Channel Two television station this week that there were “governments” that wanted to help with the “Just Not Bibi” campaigning — Bibi being the Israeli leader’s nickname.

It also follows a FoxNews.com report on claims the Obama administration has been meddling in the Israeli election on behalf of groups hostile to Netanyahu. A spokesperson for Sen. Rob Portman, Ohio Republican and chairman of the committee, declined comment, and aides to ranking Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, of Missouri, did not immediately return calls.

The Senate subcommittee, which has subpoena power, is the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs’ chief investigative body with jurisdiction over all branches of government operations and compliance with laws.

[…]

 “It’s confirmed that there is a bipartisan Permanent Subcommittee inquiry into OneVoice’s funding of V15,” the source said, speaking on condition of anonymity about the American group, which bills itself as working for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

According to the [Fox]source, the probe is looking into “funding” by OneVoice Movement – a Washington-based group that has received $350,000 in recent State Department grants and until last November was headed by a veteran diplomat from the Clinton administrations, [former Carter Administration Advisor on Middle East Policy and Clinton Ambassador to Morocco, Marc Ginsburg].

Ginsberg, who has described the administration’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a “window of opportunity,” is now serving OneVoice as “special advisor” after resigning as CEO at a time that turned out to be just ahead of the early December announcement of the Israeli election.

“I resigned on November 11, 2014, because I had only committed to serve as CEO for one year and my resignation was effective December 19, 2014,” he wrote in an email to FoxNews.com. “I agreed to be available after that as a Senior Adviser on an occasional basis to the organization…along with many others, but have had ZERO decision-making authority over personnel, budgets, programs, etc. That responsibility was transferred to the Executive Director of the OneVoice Europe organization after I resigned.”

Frank Curtis, a New English Review contributing editor and colleague  had  more about OneVoice and Bird’s connections with the Israel based V15 (“Victory”) “anyone but Bibi” support group  in a Feb 2, 2015, The Commentator article “Netanyahu should be shown respect by the White House”:

Bird has begun advising V15 on its Tel Aviv campaign, with the intent to recruit thousands of volunteers to go door to door canvassing for anti-Netanyahu parties. V15’s collaborator OneVoice is a group that describes itself as an international grassroots movement that amplifies the voice of mainstream Israelis and Palestinians. OneVoice claims to have 600,000 Palestinian, Israeli, and international signatories. Its president is Daniel Lubetzky, son of a Holocaust survivor, who was born in Mexico City in 1968, and is now a wealthy businessman based in the U.S. He apparently has funded the activity of Israeli peace groups, and is actually the founder of one of them, PeaceWorks. V15 and OneVoice are active in the attempt to defeat Netanyahu.”

Aaron Klein, veteran Israel-based investigative reporter has interviewed the head of the OneVoice offices in Tel Aviv and filed several reports on both Klein On-line and the WorldNetDaily.  He reported the February 1st, 2015 injunctions claims by Likud officials raised by Prime Minister Netanyahu and filed with the Israel Election Commission:

“Accus[ing] V15 and other related nonprofits of being supported “through millions of dollars funneled from Europe, the U.S., the New Israel Fund and international factors interested in bringing down Prime Minister Netanyahu” who think “that all means are appropriate.”

The Likud further called for Israel’s Central Elections Committee to outlaw V15′s activities to “ensure the integrity of the election.” The party today will be filing an official complaint with the Committee seeking an injunction against V15.”

Klein reported OneVoice spokesman in Israel saying:

Uri Wollman, V15′s spokesman, said  his organization will not stop its campaign to ensure a center-left coalition forms the next government in Israel.

Wollman accused Netanyahu and the Likud of “fabricating” a relationship between V15 and the Obama administration.

“We have no relation to any U.S. political party, the White House or the State Department,” Wollman told [Klein].

However, Wollman revealed to Klein that in addition to OneVoice Movement  founder Lubetzky, the grass roots efforts  were being funded by two other philanthropists: “S. Daniel Abraham, the Palm Beach based billionaire founder of the Slim Fast food line. Abraham is a major donor to the Democratic Party and the Clinton Foundation and [Israeli ]Alon Kastiel, a Tel Aviv-based businessman and owner of multiple local venues, including bars, clubs and hotels.”

 Klein’s  further investigations uncovered another  possible get out the Anti-Netanyahu vote effort directed at Israeli Arab voters by The Abraham Fund. Like OneVoice, The Abraham Fund had been given a three year grant  by the  U.S. State Department of nearly $1 million to improve Jewish Arab relations in Israel. Klein noted an Abraham Fund news release on January 21, 2015 announcing the launch of a non-partisan turnout the vote campaign to increase participation in the upcoming Knesset elections with a focus on conferences at colleges and in media and advertising to enhance Arab integration in the election process.

Alana Goodman of the Washington Free Beacon reported on January 27th, Christina Taler, State Department Grant officer for OneVoice saying:

“ We’ve formed a partnership with [V15], but it’s important to know we’re absolutely nonpartisan,” “Our biggest emphasis and focus right now is just getting people out to vote.”

When Klein asked Nimrod Dweck,  Founder  of V-15 in OneVoice’s Tel Aviv office about why Bird and the 270 Strategies team of Obama Campaign operatives were hired to ‘get out the vote’, Dweck responded:

Israelis don’t know how to run field (operations) as Americans [do], and that was the major contribution of Jeremy’s team. Bird provided very professional help about how to organize, manage people, how to go door-to-door, how to talk to people on the street. It’s a matter of finding the right professionals. And if I need to pick the best professional in the world for the job, [Bird] knows what he is doing. 270 [Strategies] is a great company.

State Department funding of both the OneVoice/V-15 and the Abraham Fund  is potentially  aiding  the anti-Netanyahu Arab and leftist Jewish vote in the “anyone but Bibi” campaign.   V-15 has hired the Jeremy Byrd of 270 Strategies, former Obama campaign field organizer coupled with funding by wealthy U.S. Democratic contributors and Israeli Zionist Union supporters fueling the tight race for control of the 33rd Israeli government on March 17th.  Given today’s Fox News report it has also led the U.S. Senate Permanent Investigations Subcommittee to address  complaints by  Senate colleagues and Prime Minister Netanyahu of U.S. Administration interference in these critical elections, the results of  which will be the basis of coalition negotiations to  form the next government.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Do we strike now or wait until Iran has nuclear weapons and face a nuclear catastrophe?

/in , , , /by

Today we can stop Iran’s path to nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation, or we can wait and suffer an unimaginable nuclear catastrophe.

Four nuclear sites are key to Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Isfahan, Arak, Natanz and Qom. Isfahan and Arak are above ground and can be destroyed by air or sea launched missiles. Natanz is under an earth berm and reinforced concrete and Qom is built inside a mountain. The U.S. currently has ordinance that can penetrate these two facilities. with its Massive Ordinance Penetrators ( MOP’s). Iran has other nuclear weapons facilities as well but they a much less important.

Sanctions have had little effect on stopping Iran’s march toward nuclear weapons. It is increasingly apparent that the only way to stop Iran’s march toward developing nuclear weapons are targeted air strikes against these four sites. This may also stop Iran’s goal for a Persian Shiite Caliphate and terrorist activities that will surely result in an all out war between Shiites and the Sunni majority.

If the U.S. strikes Iran’s four major nuclear sites it will bear no relationship to the extended wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. No U.S. ground troops will be involved. The destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities likely will take only several days. If the U.S. fails to take action it is likely Israel will. However Israel’s ability to eliminate the threat is probably limited to Iran’s two above ground nuclear facilities. It may set Iran’s nuclear weapons program back a couple of years. However only the U.S. can set it back for many years or permanently.

If Israel takes preemptive action the U.S. will nevertheless be drawn into the fray. Iran knows Obama will not initiate military action, however Iran’s recent naval action attacking a mockup of a U.S. aircraft carrier is a warning to the U.S., if Israel attacks Iran’s nuclear facilities Iran will attack U.S. ships in the area.This was the purpose of Iran’s recent naval exercise sinking a mockup U.S. aircraft carrier. Under these circumstances the U.S. should take preemptive action and not wait to be attacked.

The U.S. can prevent nuclear proliferation and ultimately a nuclear catastrophe if it destroys the four key facilities from the air before Iran has nuclear weapons.  Without nuclear weapons Iran has limited options to strike America or Europe. Other nations who would like nuclear weapons are waiting to see what the U.S. does.

In 1939 the world was in a similar place. Hitler’s Nazi Germany could have been stopped before it  invaded Czechoslovakia which allowed Nazi Germany to build a massive war machine. England and France could have easily stopped Germany at that time. They failed to do so and over 60 million people died. We are in the same position now with Iran as England and France were then. We can only hope  U.S. leadership doesn’t repeat the 1939 mistakes. If the U.S. fails to take preemptive action soon a nuclear catastrophe in the future is inevitable.

Read this interesting analysis by Joshua Muravchik:

Joshua Muravchik is a fellow at the Foreign Policy Institute of Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies.

The logical flaw in the indictment of a looming “very bad” nuclear deal with Iran that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered before Congress this month was his claim that we could secure a “good deal” by calling Iran’s bluff and imposing tougher sanctions. The Iranian regime that Netanyahu described so vividly — violent, rapacious, devious and redolent with hatred for Israel and the United States — is bound to continue its quest for nuclear weapons by refusing any “good deal” or by cheating.

This gives force to the Obama administration’s taunting rejoinder: What is Netanyahu’s alternative? War? But the administration’s position also contains a glaring contradiction. National security adviser Susan Rice declared at an American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference before Netanyahu’s speech that “a bad deal is worse than no deal.” So if Iran will accept only a “bad deal,” what is President Obama’s alternative? War?

Obama’s stance implies that we have no choice but to accept Iran’s best offer — whatever is, to use Rice’s term, “achievable” — because the alternative is unthinkable.

But should it be? What if force is the only way to block Iran from gaining nuclear weapons? That, in fact, is probably the reality. Ideology is the raison d’etre of Iran’s regime, legitimating its rule and inspiring its leaders and their supporters. In this sense, it is akin to communist, fascist and Nazi regimes that set out to transform the world. Iran aims to carry its Islamic revolution across the Middle East and beyond. A nuclear arsenal, even if it is only brandished, would vastly enhance Iran’s power to achieve that goal.

Such visionary regimes do not trade power for a mess of foreign goods. Materialism is not their priority: They often sacrifice prosperity to adhere to ideology. Of course, they need some wealth to underwrite their power, but only a limited amount. North Korea has remained dirt poor practicing its ideology of juche, or self-reliance, but it still found the resources to build nuclear weapons.

Sanctions may have induced Iran to enter negotiations, but they have not persuaded it to abandon its quest for nuclear weapons. Nor would the stiffer sanctions that Netanyahu advocates bring a different result. Sanctions could succeed if they caused the regime to fall; the end of communism in Ukraine and Kazakhstan, and of apartheid in South Africa, led to the abandonment of nuclear weapons in those states. But since 2009, there have been few signs of rebellion in Tehran.

Otherwise, only military actions — by Israel against Iraq and Syria, and through the specter of U.S. force against Libya — have halted nuclear programs. Sanctions have never stopped a nuclear drive anywhere.

Does this mean that our only option is war? Yes, although an air campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would entail less need for boots on the ground than the war Obama is waging against the Islamic State, which poses far smaller a threat than Iran does.

Wouldn’t an attack cause ordinary Iranians to rally behind the regime? Perhaps, but military losses have also served to undermine regimes, including the Greek and Argentine juntas, the Russian czar and the Russian communists.

Wouldn’t destroying much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure merely delay its progress? Perhaps, but we can strike as often as necessary. Of course, Iran would try to conceal and defend the elements of its nuclear program, so we might have to find new ways to discover and attack them. Surely the United States could best Iran in such a technological race.

Much the same may be said in reply to objections that airstrikes might not reach all the important facilities and that Iran would then proceed unconstrained by inspections and agreements. The United States would have to make clear that it will hit wherever and whenever necessary to stop Iran’s program. Objections that Iran might conceal its program so brilliantly that it could progress undetected all the way to a bomb apply equally to any negotiated deal with Iran.

And finally, wouldn’t Iran retaliate by using its own forces or proxies to attack Americans — as it has done in Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia — with new ferocity? Probably. We could attempt to deter this by warning that we would respond by targeting other military and infrastructure facilities.

Nonetheless, we might absorb some strikes. Wrenchingly, that might be the price of averting the heavier losses that we and others would suffer in the larger Middle Eastern conflagration that is the likely outcome of Iran’s drive to the bomb. Were Iran, which is already embroiled in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and Gaza, further emboldened by becoming a “nuclear threshold state,” it would probably overreach, kindling bigger wars — with Israel, Arab states or both. The United States would probably be drawn in, just as we have been in many other wars from which we had hoped to remain aloof.

Yes, there are risks to military action. But Iran’s nuclear program and vaunting ambitions have made the world a more dangerous place. Its achievement of a bomb would magnify that danger manyfold. Alas, sanctions and deals will not prevent this.

RELATED ARTICLE: An End to Iran’s Containment? – Editorial (Washington Post)

VIDEO: Hillary Clinton Lies… A Lot

/in , , /by

Ben Shapiro does another video on Hillary Clinton and her history of lies. According to Shapiro’s website:

Hillary Clinton says that she is the most transparent woman in American politics. There’s just one problem – Hillary Clinton lies… a lot. Ben Shapiro takes a trip in the way back machine to look at a few of the more egregious examples.


TRANSCRIPT:

Hillary Clinton is the most transparent woman she knows. She said so in 2008:

I think I’m probably the most transparent person in public life…I feel you know a lot more about me than you know about anyone else. Much of it untrue, but nevertheless, it’s all out there.

Unfortunately, Hillary is a liar. When news emerged this week that Hillary had set up a private email server the day before her nomination as Secretary of State, and had used her private email address for her entire tenure as Secretary of State so that there were no government records of those emails, and that her aides also used private email addresses, and that her server had the capacity to fully delete emails, and that hackers could have hacked her emails…no one should have been surprised. Of course she did.

Let’s take a trip in the wayback machine.

When Hillary Clinton was 27, back in 1974, she worked for the House Judiciary Committee, which was investigating Richard Nixon. According to her boss, Democrat Jerry Zeifman, Hillary met with Teddy Kennedy’s chief political strategist – a violation of House rules. She then manipulated the system to avoid investigating Nixon, hoping he’d stick around long enough to sink Republican election chances in 1976, letting her boy Teddy into the White House.

According to the guy who shared office space with Hillary, John Labovitz, Hillary gave “erroneous legal opinions” and tried to “deny Nixon representation by counsel.” Zeifman said that Hillary wrote a “fraudulent legal brief” and “confiscated public documents.” Zeifman fired her and wouldn’t give her a letter of recommendation. Zeifman later wrote a book stating that “Hillary Clinton is ethically unfit to be either a senator or president.”

Hillary’s now in the White House, and there’s a big search going on for a memorandum written by a former presidential aide regarding the firing of members of the White House travel office. They go missing for two years. At the same time, documents regarding Hillary Clinton’s work at the Rose Law firm in Arkansas – specifically, regarding a savings and loan company run by the Clintons’ business partner in the Whitewater land venture – go missing for two years.

Then, in January 1996, they miraculously appear. The Rose Law firm documents magically show up. A White House aide finds them. In the White House. In a storage area in the third-floor of the White House – the private residence of the President and First Lady. And the long-lost memo shows up just a couple of days later. How miraculous. Hillary’s lawyers said that she had no idea the documents were there. Except that the FBI found Hillary’s fingerprints on the documents. Oopsies. Hillary is still the only First Lady in American history to be fingerprinted by the FBI.

All that was before the rise of email. But the Clintons loved email, because it was so much easier to hide emails than to track down every copy of every document for destruction. And hide those emails they did. According to Judicial Watch, Cheryl Mills, Hillary’s hatchet woman helped prevent the Clintons from turning over 1.8 million emails to Judicial Watch, Congress, and federal investigators. 1.8 million emails. When a White House computer contractor tried to reveal this, White House officials allegedly told her to “keep her mouth shut.” Cheryl Mills. You may remember her. She ended up being in charge of document production for Hillary’s State Department in the Benghazi investigation.

When she was Secretary of State, over and over again, document requests to the State Department were rejected, because they didn’t have the documents – Hillary did, on her private server. The Associated Press hit a stonewall. So did Judicial Watch. So did Gawker.

All a big coincidence, of course. It was all a big mixup when Clinton hit man Sandy Berger stole documents from the National Archives and stuffed them down his pants, too. And now Hillary has assured us via Twitter that she wants the State Department to release all her hidden emails.

We should believe her. After all, she’s the most transparent woman in American history. At least, the most transparently corrupt.

Destroy the History, Dread the Future: Converting Native Americans to Islam

/in , , /by

They present themselves as the religion of peace, but they are intolerant, eager to crush truth and the non-compliant. They will force their peace upon you, like it or not.  Their methods are usually violence beyond one’s imagination, so that the only ones who achieve complete peace are those who have been killed quickly, not burned, or hanged, crucified, beheaded, made to endure hundreds of lashes, buried waist high and stoned to death, thrown from a cliff, succumbed to infection from acid or barbaric Female Genital Mutilation, having one’s limbs chopped off, or kidnapped for sexual slavery. Add to these Boko Haram’s cooking or burying people alive, and realize these have been done to as many as 400 million over 1400 years.

boko haram 2Although most of this brutality remains prevalent in the Middle East and Africa, a new conquest has appeared on the horizon.  In an interview with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Nurat Nazarov, aka Abu Kholidi Kulobi, a jihadist under the (Islamic State), said he will build mosques in Native American territories and “live with them according to the laws of Allah”  (Shari’a).

What can we expect to happen with American Indians?  We can predict their fate. Through their successful strategy of deceit, Islam will replace one culture with another, and the proud Native American will become a craven servant of Allah.   If there is no violence, then Islamic holy war will be waged against their holy sites.  As we learned from the Israeli experience, they will create a false narrative to delegitimize the people to their land.  Their historic sites will be destroyed, as were the tombs of Biblical Jonah, Daniel, and Joseph, and the numerous layers of Jewish civilization, still producing items that bear witness to the Hebrews’ centuries of connection to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.  Natan Sharansky described the excavation as “the largest archaeological catastrophe to mankind.”  The Dome of the Rock atop Judaism’s holiest site, was built by Caliph Abd al-Malik to commemorate his conquest of the capital and, most importantly, to erase Jewish history.

For the same reason, the Taliban have demolished the thousands-of-years-old Buddha in Afghanistan and mausoleums in Timbuktu, Mali (all UNESCO World heritage sites), tens of thousands of Hindu temples together with tons of artifacts, the loss of a people’s past. Islamic jihadists are also bulldozing and looting Iraq’s world-famous ancient cities of Nimrud and Hatra, with their ancient carved-stone reliefs; Assyrian statues; artifacts in a Mosul museum; and thousands of books and manuscripts in Mosul’s library, to eradicate pre-Islamic civilization.  This mindset was also the motive behind the 9/11/01 bombing of the World Trade Centers, to destroy the symbol of American achievement and reverse Islam’s trend of decline since their defeat in the Battle of Vienna, 9/11/1683.

islamic exhibitThis modus operandi was noted in a traveling Islamic exhibit that claims “1001 Inventions” as Islamic in origin, of which one portion, The Silk Road, was presented at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History. In reality, the faith and cultures of the inventors were victims who were forced to convert to Islam; hence, the credit for any invention was purloined by Islam from the rightful people.  Over the 14 centuries of Islamic history, Muslims have produced inestimable suffering and bloodshed, while expropriating every creative, innovative, groundbreaking invention of their victims, claiming them as their own.  

Re-education is a vital weapon in creating a new past to replace the one eradicated. Indoctrinal information that influences the society under attack, primarily its children, is essential in establishing a new regime.  Therefore, Muslims will create a faux Muslim identity for the American tribes, as they created false narratives that  Jesus (Jewish) was a Palestinian and Moses (Jewish) was the first Muslim liberator, Albert Einstein (Jewish), Stephen Hawking (Athiest) and others of note were converts to Islam.  Turkey’s President Erdogan maintains that Christopher Columbus (practicing Catholic of probably Jewish descent) was preceded in Hispaniola by Muslim explorers, which may be the first step to an Islamic foothold where none existed before.

In addition, our government has implemented the educational system, Common Core, with a staff of teachers compelled to disregard our American heritage and our Constitution, and replace with whitewashed Islamic history and faith-based studies.  This stealth infiltration is supported by Bill Gates, Arne Duncan, et. al.; a 45% investment interest by Dubai World/Istithmar World Board of Directors (EMPG) in the publishing companies that provide 52% of American textbooks; and a perplexing, but unswerving, commitment by presidential candidates, Governors Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee and John Kasich.

“Eagle Sun Walker,” who describes himself as a Muslim Cherokee-Blackfoot American Indian, is yet another symptom of Islamic aggression and forced conversion on American soil.  As more Muslims enter our country, they may well move closer to Indian Country, and begin to insinuate their beliefs, rules of Islamophobia, and demands on the naïve, obliging populace.  With the construction of the first mosque, it may take but one charismatic recruiter to sell his bill of goods to the youth, telling them they will be the vanguard of a new Islamic movement – perhaps even convince them that they are the descendants of “early Muslim settlers.”

Islamists have the psychological and financial wherewithal to entice and intimidate new recruits who may not yet have found their life’s direction.  I can see nothing in their past that would prepare them for prevailing over the all-consuming deception named Islam.

Black lives matter? Watch 15-year-old black girl violently beaten while no one stops it. [WARNING GRAPHIC]

/in , , /by

We talked about early Thursday’s ambush shooting of two police officers in Ferguson, Missouri. The chants continue of “no justice, no peace” — I must ask, what in the minds of those chanters defines justice?

We all know the “hands up don’t shoot” campaign was completely false. And then there is the rallying cry of “black lives matter” — is that truly the case, or just for the lives that can yield a political advantage?

As the New York Daily News reports, “Dozens of kids and at least two adults watched as four teenage girls brutalized a pint-sized 15-year-old girl in a Brooklyn McDonald’s — but not one made a move to stop it, a shocking video that’s been shared across the globe shows.”

“None of the witnesses at the Flatbush Ave. fast-food joint — many of whom were cheering during the after-school onslaught— dialed 911, though McDonald’s workers did call, police said. One callous onlooker even joked as the girl lay on the floor, “Yo, she’s dead. It’s a murder!”

“And even though every punch, gasp and cheer was captured on video, the girls who carried out the brutal beatdown may never be charged since witnesses refuse to speak up. The pummeled 15-year-old, a student at Erasmus Hall High School, was hospitalized overnight Monday but collapsed Wednesday at home and was rushed to SUNY Downstate Medical Center, her devastated grandmother said. “She can’t sleep because she got kicked to the body,” the grandmother said as tears streamed down her cheeks. “She fell again and they had to take her to the hospital.”

Just as with the incessant shootings in Chicago that have taken the lives of so many black males — where were the marches? The hypocrisy is telling, in that when it comes to black-on-black assault there is little to be said or to become enraged about.

It’s almost as if this savage behavior has become the new normal and acceptable in the black community. Also, did you realize an important aspect of the lead quote of the story above? Where was the mother? Where was the dad? Again, no marches out there when only 28 percent of black children have a mom and dad in the home — another great result of the Great Society.

“Cops said the victim’s mother has also refused to cooperate. Investigators now want to speak to the teen’s father in the hopes he can persuade the girl to press charges.”

I hate to say this, but what kind of parents would remain silent after their child has been severely beaten — what type of relationship does that promote? I just have to tell you, Aubrey and Austen know they have two parents who will mount up and protect them at any cost to our lives.

Why? Why is there such a lack of concern when the issue is black-on-black criminality?

This story and video are especially maddening. “The girl has two black eyes and multiple bruises, a police source said. Despite being beaten to a pulp, the teen has refused to talk to police, officials said. She’s apparently afraid of retaliation — some of the girls who attacked her have links to the Young Savages, a violent crew that operates out of Crown Heights, police sources said. On Wednesday — two days after the 2:50 p.m. attack, which took place right after school dismissal at Erasmus — community leaders called for the victimized teen and witnesses to come forward and press charges.”

We heard the same about Ferguson where those who wanted to speak the truth felt scared and intimidated.

So what has gripped the black community in such a way that lawlessness and mobocracy has come to rule the day? Were there fights when I was growing up, absolutely, but not this type of wanton violence — gang related especially — and the fear of retribution.

The is a growing lack of regard for life itself it seems, and that is not healthy for any community. The fact that witnesses stood by and watched, recording this assault and not stepping in to end this senseless beating appears to confirm that assertion.

“We are asking that young lady to not be afraid,” community activist Tony Herbert said outside the McDonald’s near Church Ave. where the attack took place — a known trouble spot “Come forward. We will stand with her. Herbert also asked that the teenage assailants surrender to authorities. “We have names,” he said. “We have pictures. We have video of all these individuals. So save the taxpayers money and bring yourself forward.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

The dirty little secret behind net neutrality

Eureka! Tom Cotton proves the existence of cojones in D.C.

Handy guide for liberals in the BDS movement: 5 things to boycott

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com. The featured image is of a protester sitting in front of a street fire during a demonstration in Oakland following the grand jury decision not to indict the cop who shot Michael Brown. Photo: Stephen Lam, Reuters.

Knights of Columbus drop out of “pro-gay” Boston St. Patrick’s Parade after outrage from traditional Catholics 

/in , , /by

Outrage in Massachusetts, across USA, and even Europe!

Today we saw the triumph of resolute religious believers over the homosexual lobby.

All this week the Massachusetts Knights of Columbus (K of C), a prominent Catholic mens’ organization, repeatedly vowed that they would “absolutely, definitely” march in the newly “gay-inclusive” Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade on Sunday. But the group finally bowed to the intense pressure from traditional Catholics. At 3:32 pm on Friday afternoon they sent out an email announcing they were dropping out of the parade.

Homosexual group OUTVETS will now be marching in the “Catholic” St. Patrick’s Day Parade in Boston this Sunday. [Boston Herald Tribune]

Homosexual group OUTVETS will now be marching in the “Catholic” St. Patrick’s Day Parade in Boston this Sunday. After reading the reports by MassResistance and the Boston-based Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, faithful Catholics and others reacted swiftly. From Massachusetts, across America. and as far away as Europe, they made their anger and outrage unmistakable. According to one K of C person, even many priests called.

They phoned and emailed the Massachusetts K of C offices, state officials, and also the national K of C headquarters in New Haven, CT.

In the end, the K of C was clearly overwhelmed. According to observers, it appears that the national office finally saw that this was not worth the fight, and they backed off the plan to march.

Insulting treatment by K of C when contacted

Many people who protested were particularly angered by the insulting treatment they felt they received from the K of C. Besides being adamant that they would not change their decision, K of C officials refused to acknowledge people’s concerns and insisting that the inclusion of homosexual groups would have no effect on the Catholic character of the parade, and that Catholic groups should have no issue with it. The K of C even began labeling it the “Evacuation Day Parade” to downplay the Catholic connection.

Sadly, even after their announcement, rather than be gracious and apologize, the Massachusetts K of C did not relent from their disingenuous line of reasoning. Here’s what they’ve posted on their website:

. . . We deeply regret that some have decided to use this occasion to further the narrow objectives of certain special interests, which has subjected this occasion to undeserved division and controversy. In addition, certain groups have chosen to misrepresent our reason for marching, insisting that we were participating in the parade to support another group or for political reasons.

Such statements, of course, completely miss the point and purposely obscure the real reason that people were so upset. The event is not about “special interests” or “political reasons” at all. It’s a celebration of faith. And the overwhelming number of faithful Catholics – and others — understand that.

C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League sent us this statement:

I want to thank Brian Camenker of MassResistance without whom this victory wouldn’t have happened. Though not a member of the Catholic religion, he has shown more courage and clarity in defending the Natural Law teachings of the Catholic religion than the faculties of most of the Catholic universities in New England.

We are honored to have been able to help!

Yes, you can fight back!

This shows the power that people of faith have within themselves. We’ve said many times that the “LGBT movement” is an unsustainable house of cards held up by money and political power, but cannot last. As we hold fast to our principles, we’ll gain momentum, so there will be more victories like this.

A final note: The weather forecast for Boston on Sunday calls for rain changing to snow.

FL Governor Rick Scott, Secretary of State John Kerry Both Lose Spat over Climate

/in , , , , , /by

The people can only laugh and shake their heads to see the antics of both Secretary of State Kerry and Florida Governor Rick Scott as they throw darts at each other’s party and their knowledge, or lack thereof, on the subject of climate change.

The latest spat is driven by comments from the ever incredulous Secretary of State John Kerry when he indirectly condemned Governor Scott’s apparent silent policy of prohibiting state employees using terms like “climate change,” and “global warming.”

Kerry’s counter to Scott’s unwritten policy came via a diatribe at the Atlantic Council this week. Kerry said “…by what right do people stand up and just say ‘I dispute that’ or ‘I deny that’ …when science tells us that our climate is changing and human beings are largely causing that change.”

It was a media sop that would have carried even more weight if he were right about the “science” of climate change. Sadly, he was not.

Kerry’s implication is that we should all blindly follow the United Nations and U.S. government climate reports and their science that say mankind’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are the primary cause of climate variation. What Secretary Kerry failed to mention is that the United Nations and their U.S. government counterpart climate reports have been excoriated by a large body of opposing scientists. Further, he should have mentioned that the government’s green house gas based climate models are in error in predicting climate by a wide margin (as much as 300%). He also failed to pass on that a large number of the “leading scientists” who wrote the UN climate reports were exposed in the “climategate” email scandal as having falsified the data, hid opposing data, and came to predetermined conclusions to fit a political agenda.

In other words, the reports were unreliable at best, too flawed for policy making in any case, and quite possibly fraudulent.

What Secretary Kerry also did not say at the Atlantic Council this week were the ‘cold’ facts of the Earth’s climate status:

  1. There is no global warming nor has there been for over 18 long years.
  2. The Earth’s major climate parameters indicate a cooling of the planet is underway according to the most reliable climate change theories and climate models.
  3. Winters are getting longer and more brutal with record cold and snowfalls, despite some climate researchers at the UN saying snow would be a thing of the past by 2003!
  4. We now have more total global sea ice on the planet than ever before recorded since the satellite era began in 1979. This is true even though Al Gore and NOAA scientists said Arctic sea ice should have disappeared completely years ago.
  5. According to a growing body of solar-climate researchers, the Sun is the primary cause of climate variation and that mankind plays an almost insignificant role in global warming or any other kind of climate change.

The Republicans, however, with their weak stance, regularly play right into the Obama-Gore-United Nations climate hand. The Republicans have routinely permitted the Democrats to claim the scientific high ground, even as they make preposterous climate claims with impunity. The policy of ignorance, side-stepping, and ineptness by the Republican Party including in the Governor’s office in Florida, deserves the ridicule it receives.

Now that the planet is heading into what may be the most dangerous cold climate in 200 years, a feud over terminology is the last thing we need from our leaders, in either party.

Yes, we have some fearless Republicans like Senator James Inhofe and Senator Ted Cruz who are unafraid of labeling climate change (manmade global warming) the “hoax” that it is. They have no problem calling out the Democrats for what I have long said is, “the greatest international scientific fraud in history.”

It’s time for Governor Scott and all other Republican leaders to join those good Senators and the legions of scientists like me who are out there, and make a firm unmistakable call for an end to this climate charade and the climate deception of Secretary Kerry, President Obama and the United Nations.

RELATED ARTICLE: Kerry speaks out on Florida’s ‘climate change’ ban

If you want to know what’s in the Nuclear Deal with Iran — Ask Tehran

/in , , , /by

Yesterday, we wrote how 47 Republican Senators, led by Arkansas U.S. Senator Tom Cotton, did us a real favor when they sent an open letter to the “Leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran”. By published the open letter to Iran’s leaders, responses from Tehran revealed that the Congress may be by-passed and its approval might not be required to ratify a nuclear deal with Iran. Secretary of State Kerry indicated during his Senate Armed Services Hearing Wednesday that the Memorandum of Understanding was “non-binding” and thus no approval was required. State Department Spokesperson Jen Psaki affirmed that position. The White House “We the People” website petition campaign created by  “C.H.” of Bogota, New Jersey accused the 47 signatories of ‘traitorous’ actions violating the 1799 Logan Act which  bars private persons, but not members of Congress, from conducting  foreign relations was simply a smokescreen. Ditto for the New York Daily News front page and editorial declaration published Tuesday. 

Two independent legal experts confirmed the Constitutional requirements for review of foreign treaties and Congressional executive agreements. Sen. Cotton’s letter also pointed out that any executive order signed by the President may not survive past the end of his term in 22 months and might be modified or terminated for cause by any successor. That raised a question of why the Memorandum of Understanding was non-binding. That provoked responses from both Foreign Minister Zarif and Supreme Ruler Ayatollah Khamenei.  While the latter railed in rhetoric about how the GOP initiative reflected “the disintegration of the U.S.” and why our representations can’t be trusted and laughing at the State Department citing Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism. It was left to Foreign Minister Zarif, to reveal that Congress wouldn’t have to approve anything saying: “The executive agreement was not bilateral but rather multi-lateral with the rest of the Permanent Members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany, subject to a resolution of the Security Council.”

Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu wrote in a Jewish Press article published today, “U.N. Security Council’s lifting of sanctions and endorsement of a deal might make Congress irrelevant.” He then cites the observation of Omri Ceren, Communications Director for the Washington, DC-based The Israel Project:

The letter forced the Administration to explain why they’re icing Congress out of Iran negotiations, and now that explanation has ignited a firestorm. The administration looks like it intentionally chose a weaker, non-binding arrangement, rather than a treaty, to avoid Senate oversight

After we published our clarification of Sen. Cotton’s letter, our colleague Ken Timmerman wrote and thanked us for our piece. He said more would be revealed in his FrontPage Magazine, article published today, “Iran Deal Secrets Revealed – by Iran.”

Here are some excerpts from the Timmerman article.

On why Zarif said Congressional approval wasn’t required:

 That if the current negotiation with P5+1 result[s] in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the US, but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution.

Timmerman’s observation:

The Obama administration has told Congress that it won’t submit the nuclear agreement with Iran for Congressional approval, but now Zarif is saying that it will be submitted to the United Nations, to form the basis of a United Nations Security Council resolution, presumably aimed at lifting UN sanctions on Iran.

That prompted Sen. Coker (R-TN) and Foreign Relations Senate Committee chair co-sponsor of The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 to write President Obama Thursday:

There are now reports that your administration is contemplating taking an agreement, or aspects of it, to the United Nations Security Council for a vote.

Enabling the United Nations to consider an agreement or portions of it, while simultaneously threatening to veto legislation that would enable Congress to do the same, is a direct affront to the American people and seeks to undermine Congress’s appropriate role.

Timmerman then recounts the repeated Iranian violations of the interim Joint Plan of Action adopted in November 2013 and how the Administration has caved to Iran’s demands:

When the negotiations began, the U.S. was insisting that Iran comply with five United Nations Security Council resolutions and suspend all uranium enrichment. Now the discussion is on how many centrifuges Iran can spin, and more importantly, how many new generation (and more efficient) centrifuges Iran can install.

On issue after issue, it’s the United States – not Iran – that has given way. When Iran got caught violating the terms of the November 2013 agreement within the first two months, by enriching fresh batches of uranium to 20%, the United States pretended not to notice.

When the International Atomic Energy Agency revealed that Iran had produced fresh batches of 20% uranium on Jan. 20, 2014, no one called it a violation, highlighting instead Iranian steps to convert a portion of the 20% uranium into fuel rods for a research reactor.

Anyone who was been observing Iran’s nuclear cheat and retreat over the past twenty years recognizes the pattern: Iran is constantly pushing the limits, and when they get called out, they take a step backwards until they think we are no longer watching, when they do it again.

And we never punish them. Not ever.

Timmerman asked a rhetorical question and gave the obvious answer:

Can Obama legally circumvent Congress and go directly to the United Nations?

Undoubtedly, just as he could ignore multiple U.S. laws – and his own statements – that prevented him for granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens by Executive Order.

But if the Iranians really believe they can find sanctuary from Congress in Turtle Bay, former White House speech writer Marc Thiessen suggests they should think again.

“The US constitution trumps international law. The U.S. constitutional trumps the United Nations,” he told FoxNews anchor Megyn Kelly on Thursday. “The Supreme Court has actually ruled on this.”

It should be crystal clear to anyone observing the U.S.-Iran charade what Tehran wants from these talks: absolute victory over the United States.

Iran’s “moderate” president Hassan Rouhani, a former nuclear negotiator himself, said it the day the November 2013 agreement was announced: “In #Geneva agreement world powers surrendered to Iran’s national will,” he tweeted victoriously.

So why is Iran engaging in this subterfuge?  It is all about achieving victory, meaning continuing the inevitable development of nuclear weapons, and having their financial sanctions lifted:

This is the deal-maker for the Iranian regime, the one thing they want so bad they actually will make concessions to achieve it.

But wait: even though the Iranians claim the sanctions are unjust, and that all the sanctions imposed over the past two decades must be removed instantaneously for a deal to be signed, that does not mean they will walk away if some sanctions stay in place.

“What they really care about are the financial sanctions,” an Iranian businessman familiar with the way the Tehran regime moves money told me. “As long as they can use and move dollars, the rest they don’t care about.”

Iran has lived so long with sanctions on dual use technology and weapons procurement that they have learned how to get around them. “They can get anything they want,” the businessman told me. “It may cost them 5 percent or 10 percent more, but they consider that the cost of doing business.”

So be prepared for a last minute, Hail Mary deal that will lift financial sanctions on Iran in exchange for Iranian promises not to build the bomb.

If such a deal will prevent or even delay a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East is anyone’s guess.

Remember, Sen. Cotton’s observation in a Tweet, after hearing Secretary Kerry’s testimony on Capitol Hill, Wednesday:

cotton tweet on iranEDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of Secretary of State John Kerry, left, and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, second from right. Source: CNN September 2014.

Unreformed HAMAS is Rearming for Further Escalation and Poses a Serious Danger to Stability

/in , , /by

hamas today study hjsDespite sustaining significant damage to its infrastructure and capacity for violence during the previous conflict, Hamas in Gaza is once again resurgent – replenishing its weapons stockpiles and resuming construction of its offensive terror tunnel system.

Without counter-measures, it appears highly likely that Hamas will soon have the means to fight a fourth war, warns The Henry Jackson Society in a new policy paper, Hamas Today: An Assessment of Alliances and Capabilities, launched this week in Parliament.

Examining the state of Hamas since the Gaza conflict last year, the paper finds that the group remains a corrosive and destabilising factor in the region. Links to terrorism in the Sinai peninsula and the Muslim Brotherhood have put Hamas at odds with the Sisi regime in Egypt, which has now imposed a tight blockade of Gaza. At the same time Hamas continues to enjoy sponsorship from powerful allies, courting Turkey and renewing ties with Iran while also continuing to receive the backing of Qatar.

Hamas remains a major obstacle to peace in the Israeli-Palestinian equation, and as the report outlines, with no real distinction between Hamas’ political and military wings, further outreach to Hamas is unlikely to yield progress. It is now essential that the international community prioritises preventing the flow of funds and arms to Hamas by coordinating with ongoing Egyptian and Israeli efforts to prevent further escalations.

Tom Wilson, Resident Associate Fellow at The Centre for The New Middle East at The Henry Jackson Society, commented:

“Hamas remains completely committed to an extremist and uncompromising ideology that prevents it from playing any kind of helpful part in achieving a sustainable peace. For the sake of stability in the region and the welfare of the population of Gaza, eliminating Hamas must be the long term goal. In the meantime it is important that all parties work to prevent further militarisation in Gaza and that the international community avoids any move that would embolden Hamas. Concessions to groups such as Hamas inevitably undermine Palestinian moderates and incentivise recourse to violence on the part of extremists.”

Hamas Today: An Assessment of Alliances and Capabilities is available to download here.

tom wilson hjs

Tom Wilson, Resident Associate Fellow at the Henry Jackson Society.

Hamas Today: An Assessment of Alliances and Capabilities is the first publication authored by our latest edition to the team, Resident Associate Fellow Tom Wilson. We’re delighted to welcome Tom to the team.

Working within our Centre for the New Middle East (CNME), Tom will assist us in addressing the continually changing politics of the Middle East with a focus on Israel, Iran and Palestinian extremist groups.

His writing has been widely published in The Wall Street Journal, The Jerusalem Post and Commentary Magazine, where he previously worked as a Tikvah Fellow. As well as continuing to examine Hamas’ strategy post-Gaza, including the frosty relations with Egypt’s Sisi regime, he will be scrutinising the nuclear negotiations with Iran as the deadline for a settlement nears. Our work at CNME has never been more relevant and we are excited that Tom is joining us at such a pivotal time.

Necessary Christian Anger

/in , , /by

Have Christians in the USA lost their ability to be righteously angry at those things that anger God?

Triska-Deka-Islamophobia Friday

/in , , /by

Every so often the Islamic planets align with the phobia planets and it becomes Triska-Deka-Islamophobia Friday, the perfect day for the boys at The United West to bring you another jammed packed show filled with an over abundance of smiles and tears. The smiles reflect the absurdity of the world in which we live and the tears reflect the absurdity of the world in which we live. Today we focus on the very significant and complex election situation in Israel and its ramifications for America’s national security concerns.

With us are Michael Ganoe, Hershey’s for Heroes reporting from Tel Aviv on the Obama-directed, anti-Netanyahu campaign, “V-15,” and Barry Shaw, detailing the up-to-the-moment instability of the elections. Tune in for a great, smart time!

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK: Queen’s chaplain says there are Qur’an passages that “invite people to violence”

Iranian President: Diplomacy with U.S. is an active jihad

Turkey: Teacher tells girls they “deserve to be raped” for not wearing hijab

Malaysia: Muslims enraged over pic of girl with dog, demand she be punished

Killing Nemtsov: Predicted by Putin, Offed by the Motherland

/in , , /by

Conspiracy enthusiasts – all hands on deck!

NemtsovHe ruffled too many feathers, made too many powerful enemies, and when the media painted him as a fifth columnist and a traitor, he didn’t crawl on his knees begging forgiveness but carried on with his head held high. That’s not how you win over friends at the Kremlin; they dislike people who walk upright.

A member of the Russian parliament from the Communist Party, Comrade Obukhov, has officially stated that the assassination of Boris Nemtsov is nothing like those of Kirov and Kennedy.

That almost sounds nostalgic: they don’t shoot ’em like they used to. He should know, since both Kirov and Kennedy had been gunned down by communists. But it could also be sour grapes.

Russia’s authoritarianism hasn’t been the same ever since the Party had lost its license to kill, but there’s still a chance the glory days may come back.

USSR Map

Like certain species capable of regenerating missing body parts, Putin’s Russia is now miraculously regenerating its previously lost militarism, territories, and spheres of influence.

The first to regenerate was the KGB and the Kremlin-run media propaganda, along with the barnacles of old political jokes that seem to have regained their edge.

In one such joke, spirits of Caesar, Napoleon, and Alexander the Great are watching a military parade in Moscow and fantasize about conquering the world if they had Russian tanks, planes, and missiles. Then Napoleon says, “And if I also had the Russian media, the world would have never learned about my defeat at Waterloo.”

Chaff

In Russia the government-controlled pen has always been mightier than its weapon systems. A de facto vassal of the KGB, the Soviet media faithfully served as a weapon in Moscow’s defensive and offensive strategies. It was used to attack perceived domestic or international enemies, as well as to release chaff of disinformation that swamped radar screens and impeded detection of targets. An ex-KGB colonel with experience in information warfare, Putin began his reign by overtaking Russia’s newly independent press and weaponizing its content.

Today’s coverage of Boris Nemtsov’s assassination is a fair example. Far from being silent about it, the Kremlin-run media is abuzz with seemingly chaotic theories:

  • This was a provocation by foreign special services (a media euphemism mostly reserved for the CIA). First proposed by Putin, it immediately became the official working theory of the investigation. The enemy’s goal is believed to be the destabilization of Russia and making Putin look like a thug (or, on the contrary, an incompetent fool unable to control the situation).
  • Ukrainian intelligence hired Chechen rebels to kill Nemtsov (who was the best friend Ukraine could ever hope to have in Russia).
  • Nemtsov was paid by Ukrainian oligarchs to destabilize Russia; he failed and they eliminated him to cover their tracks.
  • Nemtsov’s business partners rubbed him out for embezzling their money (he had no business partners and wasn’t actively involved in any businesses).
  • Nemtsov was killed by his own colleagues inside the anti-Putin opposition as a result of a power struggle, or possibly over the money coming from overseas sponsors.
  • That night he got involved in a bar brawl with random gangsters, who followed him from the restaurant and shot him in the back.
  • Islamic terrorists affiliated with ISIS killed Nemtsov for his vocal support of Charlie Hebdo.
  • Bon vivant Nemtsov broke many hearts by dating a gorgeous young model from Kiev; it was a crime of passion.

Tellingly absent from this is the single and most obvious theory the entire world is mulling over: the Kremlin connection. But if the Kremlin-run media mentions Putin in that context, it’s only as a trusted leader who has promised to hunt down the thugs and bring stability to the troubled nation. Attacks on Russia’s president by the Western media and domestic opposition (Garry Kasparov, Alexei Navalny, etc.) only prove to the average media consumer that this was a provocation aimed at attacking Putin. Back to Theory One above.

Although the mission may seem accomplished, the media’s work isn’t over. Expect more narratives of varying plausibility that will crush any residual sympathy for the deceased and establish him as a brawling playboy with a predictably low life expectancy. If anyone is to blame, it’s Nemtsov himself.

A similar template was activated when Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 from Amsterdam crashed over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, with all evidence suggesting a strike by a surface-to-air-missile launched by a Moscow-controlled military unit (the final report by the Dutch Safety Board is expected in August, 2015).

MH17 crash

The initially stunned denial of facts was followed by an immediate allegation of a conspiracy to blow up Putin’s plane, soon accompanied by a motherload of competing theories, all of them clearing Russia of any wrongdoing.

The scenarios were getting curioser and curioser, until the entire media landscape began to resemble a psychedelic scene from the last remake of Alice in Wonderland, with Johnny Depp as a lovable Russian president helping to end the reign of terror in the neighboring Ukraine. Once again, tellingly missing from that script was the Kremlin’s involvement, along with any feelings of shame or empathy:

  • According to initial reports, heroic pro-Russian militia shot down a Ukrainian military transport plane; any rumors about a downed Malaysian airliner must be a hostile provocation (was there seriously a plan to clean up the crash site and pretend nothing ever happened?)
  • The Ukrainians were planning to assassinate Putin by shooting down his presidential aircraft but got their planes mixed up. The proof was in the photograph of Putin’s plane that looked somewhat similar to the Malaysian jet, even though Putin was nowhere near Ukraine that day.
  • The bloodthirsty Ukrainian junta wanted to murder passengers on a Russian airline, but instead they killed 298 foreign citizens. The SBU (Ukrainian National Security Service) covered their tracks by killing the crew of the Buk missile system.
  • Ukrainian air traffic controllers deliberately redirected the Malaysian jet towards the war zone and lowered its altitude, as part of Kiev’s plan to make Russia look bad.
  • A Ukrainian fighter jet attacked Flight MH17 from behind, first spraying it with bullets and then turning around and launching a heat-seeking missile. This was proven by a satellite photo and an admission by a Ukrainian pilot, both of which turned out to be fake.
  • A Spanish air traffic controller claimed he saw two Ukrainian fighter jets closely following the Malaysian Boeing (a report later withdrawn as false).
  • An anonymous defector from Ukraine, speaking with a proper Russian accent, claims that on the day of the tragedy he witnessed a takeoff of a Ukrainian military jet carrying air-to-air missiles. The jet later returned without the missiles as the visibly shaken pilot said, “It was the wrong plane.”
  • Flight MH17 contained dead bodies that had been soaked in formaldehyde and smelled of decomposition within minutes of the crash. Most bodies were naked, with yellowed skin and no blood inside. The luggage was full of winter clothes even though it was summer. It was obvious that the bodies had come from a different Malaysian plane, which had been shot down by Americans and hidden away on a US Air Force base. The Americans then secretly transported the preserved bodies to Amsterdam, loaded them onto the Boeing, and sent it on an unmanned flight over eastern Ukraine in a plot to frame Russian separatists. This elaborate conspiracy reveals how desperate the Western governments have become to undermine Russia’s reputation as a peaceful power.

Are Russian journalists really such a bunch of unruly and idle gossipers? That could be the case if they also weren’t so disciplined in executing the same maneuver every time Putin gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Then, just like werewolves on a full moon losing their humanity, “serious” pro-Kremlin journalists and editors suddenly drop their respectable personae and start acting like conspiracy-obsessed lunatics.

As a result, according to a survey conducted by the Levada Center a week after the crash, 80% of Russians believed that the Boeing was shot down by the Ukrainian military with only 3% blaming the Kremlin-controlled separatists. These numbers are still true today and won’t change anytime soon. Expect a similar result with the coverage of Boris Nemtsov’s murder, including the same lack of shame or empathy for the victim.

Who killed Boris Nemtsov

In his book “America on Six Rubles a Day,” Yakov Smirnoff wrote that in Soviet Russia, they didn’t report plane crashes. They would instead build an airfield around the crash site and announce that the plane landed ahead of schedule. A more subtle approach is to make one doubt his own judgment with a rapid succession of simultaneous contradictory narratives, even if they merely project the Kremlin’s own methods.

Dots

Appearing as equal dots on the public radar, all these nonsensical chaff theories begin to compete for equal space and attention with the objective reality.

For as long as the mystery continues, manufactured absurdities will be debated on equal terms with facts, trivializing the crime, dishonoring the victim, eroding the public trust, and minimizing the moral and emotional impact.

Additionally, since finding the truth is a zero-sum game, every new deliberate nonsense diminishes the probability and legitimacy of the one and only theory that with any luck will be proven to be true.

With enough strategically directed chaff, the public will begin to connect the dots into a preordained scheme, discerning subjective phantom images that with time will solidify into the objective political reality verifiable by public opinion surveys.

According to sociologists of the Levada Center, Russia’s public opinion is shaped largely by the government-run media, with more than one half of the respondents admitting they couldn’t form opinions independently.

Dots

Thus, what the surveys are actually measuring is the effectiveness of the government propaganda, since the only visible reality in today’s Russia is what’s being projected from government-controlled TV screens, to which the nation is perilously addicted.

In yet another survey, 86% of Russians get their news from television (as opposed to 52% in the U.S.). Compare this to Vladimir Putin’s most recent 86% approval rating and the picture doesn’t get any clearer.

In contrast, and for the same reason, Boris Nemtsov’s most recent rating was about 1%. The more Putin tightened his control of the media, the less air time Nemtsov was getting, until TV producers stopped inviting him at all.

NemtsovJudging by his earlier TV appearances, Nemtsov was an excellent debater. He was witty, photogenic, quick on his feet, and capable of outdebating a roomful of opponents. That alone was enough to make him a persona non grata: the pro-Putin crowd would rather debate a less threatening, tongue-tied rube closer to their level.

If he was still mentioned on TV, it was usually with negative connotation. Nemtsov’s uncompromising stand on transparency and limiting the government powers earned him a similar media treatment the Tea Party is getting at America’s major networks.

It came to a point that after his death, TV producers couldn’t find any recent footage of him on any of their shows prior to the 1990s. There was, however, plenty of recent footage of him getting arrested at opposition rallies.

Nemtsov arrested

In a country where 86% of the population get their news from TV and about as many trust what they see, that is a political death sentence. Putin’s advocates are now using Nemtsov’s alleged lack of popularity as evidence that Putin had no motive to kill: why risk a scandal over some marginal loudmouth who could never become his rival?

Dots

The problem with that argument is that Putin doesn’t reside in the same parallel universe that the loyal TV producers have constructed on his behalf for the masses. He lives in the real world of hard facts, and in that real world Nemtsov had inflicted more damage than any other opponent by publishing well-documented reports about government corruption and graft on the highest levels, including the President himself. A former deputy prime minister, Nemtsov still had his sources and knew where to look.

Nemtsov’s friend and opposition activist, Ilya Yashin, has made it known that when Nemtsov’s apartment was searched as part of the murder investigation, the FSB confiscated his computer. The hard disk contained an unfinished report exposing Russia’s direct involvement in the Ukrainian conflict, including the movement of troops and weapons – something the Kremlin continues to deny. The actual documents, however, were hidden away in a different location. The opposition claims it is in possession of these documents and promises to complete and publish the report in the near future.

It would seem that Putin predicted this murder exactly three years ago in a campaign speech, saying that his enemies were going to whack one of their own, creating a “sacral victim” in a provocation aimed at destabilizing the country. Last week the Investigative Committee spokesman Vladimir Markin repeated Putin’s language almost word for word: “the killing could be a political provocation in which Mr. Nemtsov was used as a sacral victim, killed to discredit the government.”

Dots

But in 1997, when the Russian media was still free and politicians competed on their merits, Nemtsov had a real chance to be Russia’s next president with 29% of the voters choosing him over four other candidates, whose numbers were lower.

His fight against corruption, however, had earned him enemies among two most powerful oligarchs at the time, Gusinsky and Berezovsky. They used their power to bring Nemtsov down and instead began to elevate Vladimir Putin, who they believed would be more pliable.

Since then Gusinsky has lost most of his clout and Berezovsky hung himself in 2013 in London after thirteen years of exile and one unsuccessful assassination attempt. His suicide, however, remains an open verdict, especially given the violent death of his former closest associate and harsh Putin’s critic, Alexander Litvinenko, who in 2006 was poisoned with radioactive Polonium 210 by a Russian FSB officer on the orders most likely coming from Putin.

At the time the Russian media deployed a familiar chaff maneuver. Among other things, it accused Berezovsky of orchestrating the murder with the goal of framing and discrediting the Russian government. But Berezovsky filed a UK libel suit against Russian State Television and won. The Kremlin-run media still continued to harass him until his death, including the English-language RT, in an effort to clear Putin’s name.

Today, with Putin pledging his personal involvement in the investigation of the murder of his harsh critic Boris Nemtsov who was shot in full view of the Kremlin, and with the Russian media in full chaff mode, prepare for another mindboggling trip through the looking glass.

The chaff vs. the people

Dots

In the meantime, opposition leader and former World Chess Champion, Garry Kasparov, speculates that even if Putin didn’t order the hit, he is nonetheless responsible for the climate of hatred which he has fostered and is now using to strengthen his dictatorial powers.

Putin’s fingerprints may not be found on the Makarov pistol, but they’re still all over the Kremlin-orchestrated witch hunts, harassments, paranoia, and media brainwashing, which eventually had gotten imprinted in someone’s murderous mind as a moral license to kill.

Dots“Rubbish,” argues another opposition leader, Alexei Navalny, adding that the climate of hatred has existed in Russia since 2007, but lately the Kremlin has taken this a step further and created storm-trooper type organizations like Antimaidan and others, where young thugs are encouraged to use violence against Putin’s opponents.

This new development changes a lot of things for the opposition in Russia.

All things considered, whoever the executioners turn out to be, they had silent support of the government, the militants, the nationalists, the corrupt officials, and the millions of brainwashed TV viewers, whom the news of Nemtsov’s death made feel warm, content, and secure.

The answer to the question “Who killed Boris Nemtsov?” is this: “His own country did.”

The new Russia no longer has room for people like Nemtsov. He was simply pushed from the game board to give room for more chaff. Media chaff, military chaff, human chaff – artificial and phony chaff is replacing real people and may well be the emblem of a new era, whose beginning will forever be marked on the calendar as the day Boris Nemtsov was shot in the shadow of the Kremlin.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Peoples Cube and American Thinker. In the video above Putin said that during the election campaign provocateurs can “bang” someone famous people to blame the authorities. About this Feb. 29, 2012 RIA Novosti reported.

Australia: Muslim cleric quotes Qur’an to incite Muslims against Jews, “strongest people in enmity towards the believers”

/in , , /by

“You shall find the strongest people in enmity towards the believers to the Jews and the polytheists.” That’s Qur’an 5:82. “Fight them until there is no fitna [‘strife’], and religion belongs to Allah alone.” That’s Qur’an 8:39. “Fitna is worse than killing.” That’s Qur’an 2:191 and 2:217.

Will some moderate Muslim leader please explain how Ismail Al-Wahwah is misunderstanding and misinterpreting the Qur’an?

Meanwhile, “Al-Wahwah” would be the perfect name for a Muslim leader whining about “Islamophobia.” I hope that will be the subject of this learned imam’s next Friday sermon.

“Australian Islamist Leader Ismail Al-Wahwah Incites to Wage Jihad against Jews: ‘They Are the Most Evil Creatures of Allah,’” MEMRI, March 3, 2015:

In a Friday sermon, Ismail Al-Wahwah, spokesman for the Australian chapter of Hizb ut-Tahrir, said: “The Jews are the most evil creatures of Allah. Moral corruption is linked to the Jews.” He further said: “There is only one solution for that cancerous tumor: It must be uprooted and thrown back to where it came from.”

Following are excerpts from the video, which was posted on the Internet on March 3 by the Hizb ut-Tahrir channel.

Ismail Wahwah: Allah said [in the Quran]: “Fight them until there is no fitna [‘strife’], and religion belongs to Allah alone.” He said: “Fitna is worse than killing.” Refraining from fighting and from waging Jihad against the Jews constitutes fitna. This fitna is worse than killing, because it means that the Israelites will rule the Muslims until Judgment Day.

Recognizing the Jews and giving them even a single inch of Palestine constitutes the epitome of evil, because this will strengthen that cancerous entity. They are the most evil creatures of Allah: “You shall find the strongest people in enmity towards the believers to the Jews and the polytheists.” Refraining from fighting them constitutes widespread evil. It will enable them to kill Muslims and take over their countries, in order to spread corruption upon the land, and to capture and kill women and men. All forms of corruption are linked to the Israelites and their arrogance.

[…]

The wombs of this nation’s women have not ceased to give birth to heroes. This nation is abundant in women giving birth to heroes and mujahideen. It has always been so and will continue to be so until Judgment Day.

[…]

Past, present, and future – since their inception, the Israelites have gone hand in hand with evil and disobedience. “They did not prevent one another from any wrongdoing.” A Jew does not prevent another from wrongdoing. If [a Jew] criticizes another in the media, it is only to pull the wool over one’s eyes. The Jews are in alliance and in concert with one another.

Some superficial Muslims tell you about some Jew who demonstrated against the corruption. As long he is in Palestine, that Jew is an aggressor like any criminal. His very presence in Palestine constitutes an aggression, because he is an occupier, no matter who he is.

We must not be deceived by this. The Jews are the most evil creatures of Allah. Moral corruption is linked to the Jews. Prostitution in the world began with the Israelites. Usury and gambling began with the Israelites. Killing who began with the Israelites. They slayed the prophets without just cause. Prophets must not be killed, yet the Israelites killed them.

[…]

If the Jews were given the whole world, they would want the heavens. That is the nature of the Jews.

[…]

It is a delusion to think that there can be peace and coexistence with the Israelites, with the Jews. It is a delusion to think that we can share one state or two states, and that the Jews can be our neighbors, as suggested by some self-proclaimed, yet deluded, “scholars.” One such [“scholar”] claims that fighting neighbors is forbidden. He is one of them. Therefore, coexistence with Israel and the Jews is a delusion. There is only one solution for that cancerous tumor: It must be uprooted and thrown back to where it came from.

[…]

They have corrupted the world with their corrupt media. The Israelites have corrupted the world with so-called art, cinema, and corrupt films, and with sex trade, drug trade, and moral depravity. They have corrupted the world in every respect. These are the Israelites.

[…]

Whatever the outcome is of today’s battle, it is not the final battle. There is a sea of blood between the Jews and us. They will pay with blood for blood, with tears for tears, and with destruction for destruction. They are deluding themselves if they think that this nation will ever surrender to a gang of foreigners.

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK: Anglican vicar holds Muslim prayer service in his church, asks congregation to praise “the god that we love, Allah”

Islamic State blows up 10th century Assyrian Catholic monastery near Mosul

Why Florida needs to legalize concealed carry on campus: A rape survivor’s compelling argument

/in , , , , /by

The Florida legislature is considering bills in both houses to allow students with a concealed carry permit to bring their gun on campus. Educators have a responsibility to keep their students safe while on campus. Students currently give up their unalienable rights to defend themselves while on a school campus. Making college and K-12 school campuses gun free zones puts safety on the back burner and self defense impossible.

In November 2014 three Florida State University students were shot on campus by a lone gunman. One of the wounded students was a military veteran and holder of a Florida concealed carry permit. He was unarmed because current Florida law prevented him from carrying while on campus.

The following are excerpts from an op-ed by Amanda Collins titled “Counterpoint: A rape survivor argues why we need guns on campus.” Amanda writes:

Across the country, legislators are debating the right of law-abiding concealed carry permit holders to legally carry firearms onto university campuses.

Just the other day, I was asked “Why do you need a firearm on campus? What’s so threatening about becoming educated?” Here’s my answer: Eight years ago, during my junior year at the University of Nevada-Reno, I was raped in the parking garage only feet away from the campus police office.

As this stranger raped me while holding a pistol to my temple, I could see the police cruisers parked for the night, and I knew no one was coming to help me. Eventually the man who raped me, James Biela, was caught. He was tried and convicted for not only raping me at gun point in a gun-free zone, but also raping two other women and murdering Brianna Denison. So, I ask, “How does rendering me defenseless protect you against a violent crime?”
At the time of my attack, I had obtained my Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) permit for the personal choice of not wanting to be a defenseless target. In Nevada, permit holders are not allowed to carry firearms on campuses. As a law-abiding citizen, I left my firearm at home, which means that the law that is meant to ensure my safety only guaranteed the criminal an unmatched victim.

I still wonder what would have been different if I’d been carrying my weapon that night. But here’s the truth: Had I been carrying my firearm, I would have been able to stop the attack. Not only that, but two other rapes would have been prevented and three young lives would have been saved, including my own.

Any survivor of rape can understand that the young woman I was walking into the parking garage that night was not the same woman who left. My life has never been the same after my attack. Legalized campus carry would have saved my family, who happens to be the collateral damage in my story, and me a great deal of untold torment.

My case is a perfect example that despite law enforcement’s best efforts to ensure our safety, they are unable to be everywhere at once. All I wanted was a chance to effectively defend myself. The choice to participate in one’s own defense should be left to the individual. That choice should not be mandated by the government. As a law-abiding citizen, I should not have to hand over my safety to a third party. Laws that prohibit campus carry turn women like me into victims by stripping away our Second Amendment rights.

Unfortunately, legislators opposed to campus carry are more intimidated by law-abiding citizens like me sitting in class with a legal firearm, than the rapist waiting for me in the parking garage. Most people are unaware that one in four women will be raped while attending college and one-third of them occur on the campus they attend.

Read more.

EDITORS NOTE: Amanda Collins’ op-ed is a response submitted through the National Rifle Association to a Feb. 24 column, “More Guns on campus is not the answer to sexual assault,” by Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a Michael Bloomberg funded anti-gun organization.