Archive for March 16, 2016

State: Kerry Needs More Evidence to Determine Genocide by ISIS and Assad

March 16, 2016

State: Kerry Needs More Evidence to Determine Genocide by ISIS and Assad, Washington Free Beacon, March 16, 2016

(Kerry is big on evidence. Just look at the Iran scam and nuke inspections. — DM)

 

 

State Department deputy spokesman Mark Toner said Wednesday that his boss, Secretary of State John Kerry, needs more evidence to determine if the Islamic State has committed genocide with its slaughter of thousands of innocents throughout the Middle East and North Africa.

Congress had set Kerry a deadline of March 17 to officially determine whether atrocities committed by ISIS constitute genocide, but Toner told reporters during the State Department’s daily press briefing that the department will not have a decision by that date.

“Determining these kinds of legal definitions, such as genocide and crimes against humanity, require a very detailed, rigorous legal analysis,” Toner said. “[Kerry] is a lawyer, and, of course, that’s going to weigh into [how he makes his decision].”

“There are a lot of lawyers on [Captiol] Hill, too,” Associated Press reporter Matt Lee said in response, referring to the House of Representatives unanimously voting 393-0 on Monday to pass a resolution labeling the barbarity ISIS has perpetrated against Christians and other religious minority groups in the Middle East as “genocide.”

Toner clarified that his “only point is that he [Kerry] wants to base his decision on the best evidence available, and he has requested additional evidence, information, in order to [do so].”

“It just seems like there is a lot of evidence already out there,” Lee said in response.

The international community has decried ISIS’ slaughter and enslavement of anyone who does not submit to its uncompromising brand of Sunni Islam, killing Muslims as well as other religious and ethnic groups.

The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum determined last year in a report that ISIS is guilty of carrying out genocide against the Yazidi religious minority in northern Iraq, a term the museum rarely uses.

“We believe Islamic State has been and is perpetrating genocide against the Yazidi people,” the report says. “Islamic State’s stated intent and patterns of violence against Shia Shabak and Shia Turkmen also raise concerns about the commission and risk of genocide against these groups.”

The jihadist group has also carried out brutal violence against Christians and other groups, with Muslims making up the highest number of its victims.

The European Parliament voted last month to describe ISIS’ atrocities in Iraq and Syria as genocide.

There has been some debate as to whether using the term “genocide” with ISIS in an official capacity would legally obligate the U.S. to take further action against the jihadist group, which some people have argued is why the Obama administration is reluctant to do so.

Toner made clear at Monday’s press briefing that no legal requirement comes with using the term, but he stressed the international community has an obligation under the United Nations to stop crimes against humanity and other such atrocities like the ones being committed by ISIS.

In addition to the resolution on genocide passed Monday, the House also voted 392-3 to pass a measure calling for the creation of an international tribunal to try the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad for war crimes.

Assad triggered the Syrian civil war in 2011 by slaughtering his own people for peacefully protesting his authoritarian rule. He has since waged a war against the Syrian people who formed an opposition in response, resulting thus far in about 400,000 deaths and the displacement of millions of others.

Assad has received help from Iran, Lebanese Hezbollah, and Russia to stay in power.

Should Trump and Cruz unite with we the people against the establishment uni-party?

March 16, 2016

Should Trump and Cruz unite with we the people against the establishment uni-party? Free Republic, Jim Robinson, March 16, 2016

(I would prefer Trump as president, but a Trump – Cruz ticket would be great. I hope it happens. — DM)

The biggest plus is a Trump/Cruz ticket would immediately secure the nomination for us (the majority of the right-leaning grassroots voters), end any possibility of a GOPe betrayal at the convention, and would ensure the Republican party is finally with we the grassroots people (tea party, conservatives, religious people, economic conservatives, business people, middle class, blue collar, national security patriots, etc, ie, a rebirth of the Reagan Coalition) and against the globalist GOP big government establishment. It’d be a yuuuge middle finger to the elite ruling classes of both parties.

And it would have coattails guaranteeing a pro-America landslide against the America-hating Marxists and a strengthening of the Republican majority in the congress and in local and state governments. And finally begin a return to constitutional, pro-America, pro-free-market government and a reversal of the slide into godless socialism and globalism.

A mandate from we the people to secure the borders, enforce the law, deport the illegals, end sanctuary cities, end the war on Christianity, cut the taxes, cut the government, cut the regulations, end the war on American industry, end the war on coal gas & oil, bring back a growing economy, bring back manufacturing and jobs, and rebuild the military.

Unlike the GOPe, this is what real Americans want and what both candidates propose doing.

So let’s quit bickering, join forces, and make it happen.

Democracy in Germany anno 2016 !

March 16, 2016

 

On citizens who disagree with the asylum policy of our Chancellor, we do not want them to vote.

I prefer 1000 times non-voters than the brown scum that is to vote on the AfD.

(Sigmar Gabriel, chairman of the SPD)

 

H/T E.J.Bron

Argentina shoots & sinks Chinese trawler for alleged illegal fishing (VIDEO)

March 16, 2016

Argentina shoots & sinks Chinese trawler for alleged illegal fishing (VIDEO)

Published time: 16 Mar, 2016 18:37

Source: Argentina shoots & sinks Chinese trawler for alleged illegal fishing (VIDEO) — RT News

© Ruptly

Thirty-two sailors from a Chinese trawler were dramatically rescued off the coast of Argentina after the South American country’s coast guard pursued and sank ‘Lu Yan Yuan Yu 010’ for allegedly fishing illegally using banned fishing reel equipment.

Nationalist greed, as opposed to environmental protection, was the motivation of Argentina’s Naval Prefecture (PNA) when it chased and scuttled the ‘slow boat from China’ after observing it trawling inside the exclusive economic zone off Puerto Madryn, according to Argentinian officials.

“The vessel was hailed over radio and both visual and audio signals were sent to make contact. However, the vessel turned off its fishing lights and proceeded to flee towards international waters without responding to repeated calls over various frequencies,” the coastguard statement said. “The ship performed maneuvers designed to force a collision with the coastguard, putting at risk not only its own crew but coastguard personnel, who were then ordered to shoot parts of the vessel.”

The PNA is believed to have fired the first warning shots when the fishing vessel resisted attempts by the Argentines to board it.

China’s Foreign Ministry claimed the boat had been “chased for hours” before being sunk and says it has made “urgent representations” to Argentina in a bid to have an investigation launched.

This is not the first time Chinese trawlers have fallen foul of Argentina’s maritime patrols.

Back in 2012, two fishing vessels were detained for allegedly engaging in illegal squid fishing within the South American nation’s exclusion zone.

French police arrest four people suspected of planning terror attacks

March 16, 2016

Source: French police arrest four people suspected of planning terror attacks | World news | The Guardian

François Hollande says terrorist threat in France is high as police arrest three men and one woman

French police officers patrol near the Eiffel tower in Paris
French police officers patrol near the Eiffel tower in Paris. Photograph: Yoan Valat/EPA

François Hollande has warned that the terrorist threat in France remains very high after four people believed to have militant Islamist ties were arrested in dawn raids in the Paris area on suspicion of planning attacks in the French capital.

Three men and a woman were arrested in the north of Paris but the investigation was focused on one of them: a 28-year-old French man who has been under house arrest since 29 February under the special provisions of France’s state of emergency.

He had been sentenced to five years in prison in March 2014 after being arrested two years earlier when he tried to leave France for Syria. The French TV station TF1 reported that he had been released in October last year.

The man was arrested on Wednesday with his partner in Seine-Saint-Denis on the north-east edge of Paris. Two French brothers of Turkish family origin were also arrested at the same time in a northern arrondissement.

“We have information about one person that suggests that he could undertake violent actions in France,” the French interior minister, Bernard Cazeneuve, said, adding that the man was thought to have ties with Islamic State in Syria.

Cazeneuve said: “This person was arrested this morning along with people linked with him.”

He warned against jumping to the conclusion that an attack was imminent, saying police checks were under way.

French media reported that police seized computer equipment and an unused cartridge for an automatic rifle.

Meanwhile, police in Belgium continued to hunt for two suspects who fled a Brussels flat after a shootout on Tuesday during a raid linked to November’s Paris attacks.

Police shot dead a gunman during the raid in the Brussels neighbourhood of Forest. The gunman was identified as Mohamed Belkaïd, a 35-year-old Algerian living illegally in Belgium. He was shot dead by a police sniper as he prepared to fire at officers from a window.

“Next to his body was a Kalashnikov, a book on Salafism and an Islamic State flag,” said Thierry Werts, of the Belgian federal prosecutor’s office.

The flat in southern Brussels also contained a large cache of ammunition, investigating prosecutor Eric Van der Sypt said.

Belkaïd had previously only been known to police for a case of theft in 2014.

The anti-terror raid in Brussels came as French and Belgian police continue to investigate the 13 November gun-and-bombing attacks on a stadium, Paris cafes and a rock concert.

The Paris attacks, which were claimed by Isis, are believed to have been partly prepared and coordinated in Brussels.

Belgian officials said that since the attacks, 58 people have been arrested in the direct investigation and another 23 arrested in related inquiries.

The Belgian prime minister, Charles Michel, said the country’s terror alert would stay at the second highest level, “which means a threat is possible and likely”.

Michel called on residents to “stay calm and cool-headed”. He told broadcaster RTL: “The investigation continues and the danger remains.”

Islam and Iran’s Aishas: Girl Marriages Under 10

March 16, 2016

Islam and Iran’s Aishas: Girl Marriages Under 10, Front Page Magazine, Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, March 15, 2016

668

It was not solely 1400 years ago that a little girl named Aisha married a 55-year-old man, although Muslims, their scholars, Sheiks and Imams argue to the contrary. Tens of thousands of “Aishas” are being forced to marry elder man on a daily basis under the name of Islam in Muslim nations in the 21st century. No one is even raising an eyebrow. For example, according to the latest reports from Persian news outlets, the number of the child marriages has been dramatically increasing in the Islamic Republic. According to the Students’ News Agency and Radio Farda, these marriages include girls under 10 years old. 

On the other hand, the hypocritical politicians in the Islamist regime of Iran point out that there is gender equality in Iran and that Islam respects both women and men. For example, recently, Shahindokht Molaverdi, the Islamic Republic’s vice president for women and family affairs who led a delegation to the United Nations in New York, lied to the international community in stating that “the Islamic Republic of Iran has always had the empowerment of women and improving their status…on its agenda.”

What is also hidden by the ruling clerics, and from most of the reports, is the fact that the notion of forcing a child girls into marriage is encouraged in Iran. In addition, the groom is normally a much older man. These children are forced to sleep with their older male husbands on the first night of the marriage so that the family of the groom can be certain that the child is a virgin.

Many of these girls are forced into marriage due to the fact that their parents want to get rid of their daughters since a girl is considered much more inferior to a man. There exists a plenitude of verses from the Quran and hadiths from Muhammad declaring that women are legally, physically, socially and intellectually inferior to men.

I discuss these issues in detail in “A God Who Hates Women.”

In order to remove such atrocities against girls and children, the question to ask is: What are the elements in Islamic societies that permit and give legitimacy to crimes against children such as child marriage? The answer is clear: Islam.

Although many apologetic Western Muslim scholars suggest that it is not the religion of Islam that is to blame, I would argue that it is in fact the religion of Islam and its legal codes that allow such inhumane crimes.

The fact is that the parents of these children use the example of Muhammad’s marriage and Aisha when they want to marry off their kids. Muhammad is the model for Muslims.  He is infallible. So whatever he did was correct and directed by Allah.

The fact is that that raping little girls is legalized in the penal code of the Islamic Republic, based on Islam, which provides the platform and legal code to do so.

When you ask Western Muslim scholars why Muhammad married Aisha when he over 50 years old and she was nine years old, they will respond that that was 1400 years ago and it was okay then. But none of them criticize the child marriages that now occur under Islam — because they either approve of what is happening or they know that legal codes in the Quran and the example of Muhammad’s life allow it. (Muslims are told by Muhammad to follow Quran, his sayings, and the way he lived.)

Thus, the rape of little girls is happening “legally” due to the Islamic codes. In addition, it was after the Iranian Islamic revolution of 1979 that the clerics lowered the legal marriage age for girls and boys.

The truth of the matter is that Muhammad left the religion of Islam with such an unyielding and inflexible character that it is impossible for it to evolve, change, or adapt to modern civilization and human rights standards. He also left Islam with specific penal codes in the Quran that promote crimes such as suppressing, dehumanizing, and subjugating women, as well as providing the legal platform for pedophiles or those who want to “legally” marry a girl under 10 years old.

The Israel-Bashing Industry’s “Intellectuals”

March 16, 2016

The Israel-Bashing Industry’s “Intellectuals” Gatestone Institute, Giulio Meotti, March 16, 2016

♦ These novelists hold a deep, uninformed, irrational hatred. Instead of backing the only country that gives full rights to all its citizens, they are instrumental in attacking not only Israel but the Jewish people.

♦ What is notable is that every single time, these most illustrious writers “forget” to say why Israel built those fences, checkpoints and roadblocks in the first place.

♦ Saramago, while he was visiting Ramallah, chose not to see and talk about the Israeli restaurants, malls and hotels turned into carpets of human bodies. The wholesale slaughter of Jews was the only reason Israel had to send tanks and soldiers back into the Palestinian cities after the Oslo Accords. Saramago did not mention the context; he preferred to give credence to a distorted, demonizing vision.

What is the only country about which can be said that its very existence is disputed? Clue: Not Zimbabwe, not Tuvalu, not even overrun Tibet. Which country’s boundaries, bought with blood in wars initiated by others, are challenged by all nations, who now seem determined to destroy it through boycotts, unjust defamation and purported “laws” that are applied to no other nation?

Which country fully respects the rights of women and every kind of ethnic, religious and sexual minorities, notwithstanding that it is condemned at the United Nations for being “the worst violator of women’s rights” — worse than Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan?

Which country provides its own enemy with water, electricity, food and medical treatment? Its military, to avoid enemy civilian casualties, warns its enemy to evacuate buildings before attacking them, and — instead of simply carpet bombing the enemy as all other nations do, including most democracies — sends its own soldiers possibly to die in ground operations?

The country is Israel — the only country that even famous writers, intellectuals and Nobel laureates target, demonize and criminalize.

There was a time when Nobel laureates for Literature, such as the German Heinrich Böll, the French Jean-Paul Sartre and the Italian Eugenio Montale, rushed to denounce injustice. Earlier, in the name of best Europe’s values — justice, freedom and solidarity — they condemned the threats to the State of Israel’s existence.

But today, these novelists hold a deep, uninformed, irrational hatred towards the same place. Instead of backing the only country that gives full rights to all its citizens, they are instrumental in attacking not only Israel but the Jewish people. In Germany, Hitler’s Mein Kampf is the new best-seller. In Europe today, you can even find a great number of books that wipe Israel off the map. And a provincial council near Glasgow, West Dunbartonshire, banned Israeli books from local libraries.

In the chorus of those who speak from journals, poems and novels, there have been a few noble exceptions. The Albanian writer Ismail Kadaré, a Muslim candidate positioned every year to win the Nobel Prize for Literature, turned down a request to boycott the tiny Jewish State. Israel, he says, faces “the threat of disappearance,” and he compared Israel to Albania under Nazi occupation. Also the author of the Harry Potter books, JK Rowling, refused to add her name to the list of Israel’s boycotters.

Their brave, solitary gestures highlight the sluggish, uninquiring conformity of the “intelligentsia’s” campaign to pile unmerited calumnies on Israel.

Worse, supposed “intellectuals” often spout raw anti-Semitism while giving a pass to the truly barbarous people among us. If the Nobel Committee had any decency, it would revoke the prizes it awarded for “Peace” to such “humanitarians” as Fidel Castro and Yasser Arafat. It is painful to watch the Nobel Committee make a fool of itself year after year, and it is painful to watch these so-called intellectuals be so unaware and filled with prejudice against the people who least deserve it.

An Italian writer, Dario Fo, a laureate of the Nobel Prize for Literature, just gave an interview to the newspaper, La Repubblica. Fo, talking about the Jewish patriarch, Moses, said: “Moses was killing women and children because they worshiped idols.” Mr. Fo went on blaming “the Jews’ brutality against those who follow other religions, as it happens today.” Excuse me? Is it the Jews who are burning people alive, drowning them in cages, slitting throats or crucifying anyone for following a different religion?

Mr. Fo’s comparison is as wrong as it is ghastly. It is not the Jews who suicide-bomb Palestinian buses, cafes, wedding halls and discotheques. It is not the Jews who now try to mow down Palestinians with cars or stab them in the street. It is the reverse — and has been for years.

The daily newspaper La Stampa charged Dario Fo with “recycling anti-Semitic stereotypes.” Fo is not new at this. In the 1970s, in one of his theatrical operas, “Resistance: Italian and Palestinian people speak,” the future Nobel Prize laureate compared Nazism to Zionism and the Palestinian fedayeen terrorists to the anti-Fascist partisans.

A few days after the 9/11 attacks, Fo also said that,

“the great speculators wallow in an economy that every year kills tens of millions of people with poverty — so what is 20,000 dead in New York? Regardless of who carried out the massacre, this violence is the legitimate daughter of the culture of violence, hunger and inhumane exploitation.”

Who gave this famous writer the right to defame, earlier, not only Israel’s name but also 9/11’s victims?

Another Nobel prize-winning novelist, Mario Vargas Llosa, as well as the Pulitzer Prize winner Dave Eggers, are among a group of international novelists who will contribute to a book of essays next year about “50 years of Israeli occupation” that will be published by Harper Collins, one of the publishers that wiped Israel off the map.

The book is part of an initiative by Breaking the Silence, a non-governmental organization (NGO) which makes sweeping charges against the Israeli army “based on anonymous and unverifiable hearsay ‘testimonies.'” while refusing to disclose the names of the Israeli soldiers who “testified.” Worse, it is being funded specifically “to incriminate the IDF” (Israel Defense Forces) and, was explicitly directed by European charities to prove that Israel acted improperly. In an article entitled, “Europe to Breaking the Silence: Bring Us As Many Incriminating Testimonies As Possible,” the watchdog group NGO Monitor disclosed that:

Contrary to BtS’ claim that “the contents and opinions in this booklet do not express the position of the funders,” NGO Monitor research reveals that a number of funders made their grants conditional on the NGO obtaining a minimum number of negative “testimonies.” This contradicts BtS’ declarations and thus turns it into an organization that represents its foreign donors’ interest, severely damaging the NGO’s reliability and its ability to analyze complicated combat situations.

Are these “prestigious” writers aware of the organization’s predetermined bias which is going to fund their new book?

There is also, of course, the problem of double standards and hypocrisy. These writers did not decide to put their pen at the service of the Syria’s civil war victims or the Christians and Yazidi who are suffering a genocide in Iraq. No, these writers targeted Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, and its supposed “occupation” — which they fail to disclose was backed by the Palestinians themselves in the Oslo II Accord of 1995, Chapter 3, Article XVII Jurisdiction [1], which in fact turned the Palestinian people into the most protected Arab population in the entire Middle East. Go to Ramallah and Jenin and you will see the difference between how they live compared to the people living in Aleppo, Sana’a and Mosul.

The most prolific novelists in the Israel-Bashing Industry are, sadly, the British. “Sadly,” especially as Iran has within the last month raised the bounty offered on the head of a British citizen, Salman Rushdie, by another $600,000, in addition to the $3 million issued by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989. That brings the incentive for murdering a novelist to roughly $4 million. About that, the British government has been shamefully silent. The only condemnation so far seems to have come from the Iranian journalist, Amir Taheri, the British journalist, Douglas Murray and from PEN.

Another “intellectual,” John Berger, a Booker Prize winner, called for artists to decline being published by Israeli publishers and to undertake a boycott of the Jewish State. Harold Pinter, the late Nobel Laureate playwright, has gone so far as to declare Israel “the central factor in world unrest,” presumably forgetting about Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and Sudan. Showing how thin is the line separating criticism and anti-Semitism, Tom Paulin, poet, essayist and academic at Oxford, said Jewish “settlers” in Israel “should be shot dead.” A Scottish National Poet, Liz Lochhead, also joined a group calling for the boycott of Israel.

Dozens of the world’s literary stars, including Nobel laureates in literature such as J. M. Coetzee, Herta Mueller, Orhan Pamuk and the late Irish poet Seamus Heaney, added their names to a petition against Israel’s “occupation’s giant, cruel hand.” What is notable is that every single time, these most illustrious writers “forget” to say why Israel built those fences, checkpoints and roadblocks in the first place.

Donald Trump wants to build a wall with Mexico, the Arab sheikhdoms are closing the border with Oman, Spain built fences to keep out Moroccans, India is walling off Bangladesh, South and North Korea share a fortified border, Cyprus is divided by walls and Belfast is a fenced city of barriers.

But only Israel’s fence — built for defensive, humanitarian reasons, merely not to get blown up — is condemned by the International Court of Justice and receives round-the-clock coverage on CNN and front page stories in the New York Times. Why? Because the security barrier that saves lives was perverted by unjust people into an unjust barrier, with no mention of what happened to Israelis before that fence was put up. To paraphrase attorney Alan Dershowitz: If you made a fair and objective list of all the countries in the world that comply with human rights, from best to worst, Israel would have to be near the top, among the best.

One of the most chilling accusations against Israel has come from a northern European writer, Jostein Gaarder, an ostensible humanitarian, whose book, “Sophie’s World,” was translated into 53 languages, and with 26 million copies sold. Penning an article in the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten, Gaarder wrote:

“If the entire Israeli nation should fall … and part of the population must flee to another Diaspora, then we say: may their surroundings stay calm and show them mercy. Shoot not at the fugitives! Take not aim at them! They are vulnerable now — like snails without shells! … Give the Israeli refugees shelter; give them milk and honey!”

Gaarder envisages the expulsion of the entire Jewish people from their land, and again dependent on European charity — in recent years not exactly a commodity in great supply.

Israel has been humiliated also by a German writer and Nobel Prize for Literature, Günter Grass, who published a poem in several European newspapers, in which he treated Israel as the purveyor of all ills and the instigator of every type of disorder. According to Mr. Grass, it is Israel that threatens Iran with a nuclear genocide, not the reverse.

This sanctimony should not have come from that writer: Grass, in fact, served in Nazi Germany’s armed SS force and defined East Germany’s Communism “a comfortable dictatorship.”

After a visit in the Palestinian Authority’s de facto capital, Ramallah, during the Second Intifada, after there were about 1,500 Jewish dead from terrorism, another winner of Nobel Prize for Literature, José Saramago, stated that the Israeli blockade of Ramallah was “in the spirit of Auschwitz” and “this place is being turned into a concentration camp.” A year later, Saramago commented that the Jewish people no longer deserve “the sympathy for the suffering they went through during the Holocaust.”

1512Nobel laureates who demonized: German novelist Günter Grass (left), who served in Nazi Germany’s armed SS force, claimed that Israel threatens Iran with a nuclear genocide. Portuguese novelist José Saramago (right), gave credence to a distorted, demonizing vision that culminated in the perverse comparison between Hitler and Israel.

Mr. Saramago, while he was visiting Ramallah, chose not to see and talk about the Israeli restaurants, shopping malls and hotels turned into carpets of human bodies. The wholesale slaughter of Jews was the only reason Israel had to send tanks and soldiers back into the Palestinian cities after the Oslo Accords. Saramago did not mention the context; he preferred to give credence to a distorted, demonizing vision that culminated in the perverse comparison between Hitler and Israel, and the transformation of the Jewish State — the historical home of the Jews for nearly 4000 years, and lately the only sanctuary not to turn away Jews being persecuted or rounded up for death — into an “imperialist base.”

It is by repeating lies that Europe even accepted the big Mohammed al-Dura lie: a boy supposedly riddled to death with Israeli bullets, but there was not one drop of blood! Not only that, but after he was dead, he moved his hand to look out. Quite a feat. For a time, the lie even became the favorite table conversation for Europe’s upper classes.

This is how millions of Europeans have been persuaded to see Israel as the aggressor and the Palestinian terrorists as the victims. They read the inverted, Orwellian revision of history every day on the front pages. Look at what is happening now during this “Third Intifada”: it is filled with knives, stabbings of Jews, even charts on the internet showing where to stab a Jew to do the most damage. The many dead Israeli civilians and soldiers have totally disappeared from the television screen, but when Israeli soldiers shoot a Palestinian in the process of stabbing a Jew, they are labelled by a corrupt and racist media as “illegal executioners.”

What would these supposed intellectuals do if citizens were being stabbed in London, Rome or Berlin? The “intellectuals” and the media seem to be trying to make the Jews unable to defend themselves. The “intellectuals” and the media are preaching for Israel’s destruction.

_____________________

[1] From the Oslo II Accord — Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, September 28, 1995, CHAPTER 3 – LEGAL AFFAIRS, ARTICLE XVII
 — Jurisdiction:

4. a. Israel, through its military government, has the authority over areas that are not under the territorial jurisdiction of the Council, powers and responsibilities not transferred to the Council and Israelis.

b. To this end, the Israeli military government shall retain the necessary legislative, judicial and executive powers and responsibilities, in accordance with international law. This provision shall not derogate from Israel’s applicable legislation over Israelis in personam.

Latvia’s Waffen-SS veterans march alongside far-right lawmakers (VIDEO)

March 16, 2016

Latvia’s Waffen-SS veterans march alongside far-right lawmakers (VIDEO)

Published time: 16 Mar, 2016 13:53

Source: Latvia’s Waffen-SS veterans march alongside far-right lawmakers (VIDEO) — RT News

Latvian veterans of Waffen-SS units and their supporters have celebrated Legion Day, an unofficial holiday honoring Nazi collaborators during WWII, with marches through downtown Riga, Latvia’s capital.

This year the march attracted hundreds of participants, as seen in the live footage by Ruptly video agency.

Those taking part in the procession, some dressed in old Latvian military outfits, were carrying the national flags of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, reports RIA Novosti.

The Latvian government officially opposes the event, but does not prohibit it on the grounds of free speech.

Latvia’s anti-fascist activists staged a small protest, as they do every year when Latvian Waffen-SS veterans march in the capital Riga.

Latvians who served in Waffen-SS not only fought against the Soviet Army, but also were a part of the atrocities committed against European Jews.

Of the 70,000 Jews that lived in Latvia when the Nazi Germany entered its territory, it’s estimated that 67,000 died in the Holocaust.

Russia says the Nazi veterans’ march is a violation of international law. Anti-fascist and Jewish human rights organizations, such as the Simon Wiesenthal Center, believe such rallies glorify Nazism.

“Some of the people prior to joining the [Latvian Waffen-SS] Legion served in Latvian security forces, which played an active role in mass murder of the Latvian Jews,” Dr. Efraim Zuroff, head of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, told RT. “People who fought for victory over Nazi Germany should be considered heroes.”

The head of the Simon Wiesenthal Center called attention to the fact that thousands of Jews from Eastern Europe were brought to Latvia and exterminated in concentration camps by the German Nazis and their Latvian collaborators.

Read more

Prisoner roll call at KZ Salaspils, December 22, 1941. (Wikipedia/Nazi propaganda photo)

Ahead of the event, Latvia’s State Border Service was reported to be operating on a robust security regime, officially to prevent radicals from abroad from taking part in the Nazi procession.

Yet instead of barring people praising neo-Nazi ideology from entering the country, Latvian border protection refused to grant entry to representatives of three German anti-fascist organizations, co-chair of the Latvian Anti-Fascist Committee Joseph Koren said Tuesday.

Altogether, six delegates from the Association of Victims of the Nazi Regime, an organization of resistance veterans and Germany’s Anti-Nazi League were turned away at Riga Airport and banned from entering Latvia.

The border guards explained their actions by an order coming from the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs of Latvia.

Two days ahead of the Nazi celebration, lawyers of the Russia’s Rossiya Segodnya news agency (the parent organization of RT) were denied entry to Latvia. The lawyers were to attend a court hearing following the decision of the Latvian authorities to deny official registration for Sputnik news agency (another part of Rossiya Segodnya) in Latvia last August.

The Latvian Legion of the Waffen-SS consisted of almost 150,000 Latvians and was split into two divisions. The legion was created in 1943 on the orders of Adolf Hitler. On March 16, 1944, the legion was deployed against the Soviet Red Army near the town of Pskov. It was among the last of the Nazi forces to surrender in 1945.

The Waffen-SS march has been held annually on March 16 since 1998.

Trump and the Left’s Accusations of Fascism

March 16, 2016

Trump and the Left’s Accusations of Fascism, Front Page MagazineBruce Thornton, March 16, 2016

trump

Donald Trump’s success in the primaries and his rhetoric have sparked troubled meditations about an awakening of fascist impulses among his supporters. Bret Stephens has drawn an analogy with the Thirties, “the last dark age of Western politics,” and compared Trump to Benito Mussolini. On the left, Dana Milbank, in a column titled “Trump Flirts with Fascism,” wrote about a campaign rally at which Trump was “leading supporters in what looked very much like a fascist salute,” a scene New York Times house-conservative David Brooks linked to the Nuremberg party rallies.

Much of the rhetoric that links Trump to fascism or Nazism is merely the stale ad Hitlerum fallacy used by progressives to demonize the candidate. They did the same thing when they called George W. Bush “Bushitler.” This slur reflects the hoary leftist dogma that conservatives at heart are repressed xenophobes and knuckle-dragging racists lusting for a messianic leader to restore their lost “white privilege” and punish their minority, immigrant, and feminist enemies. As such, the attack on Trump is nothing new or unexpected from a progressive ideology whose totalitarian inclinations have always had much more in common with fascism than conservatism does.

What Auden called the “low dishonest decade” of the Thirties, however, is indeed instructive for our predicament today, but not because of any danger of a fascist party taking root in modern America. Communism was (and in some ways still is) vastly more successful at infiltrating and shaping American political, cultural, and educational institutions than fascism ever was. But the same cultural pathologies that enabled both fascist and Nazi aggression still afflict us today. These pathologies and their malign effects are more important than the reasons for Trump’s popularity–– anger at elites, economic stagnation, and anti-immigrant passions–– that supposedly echo the “waves of fear and anger” of Auden’s Thirties.

The most important delusion of the Thirties still active today is the idealistic internationalism that had developed over the previous century. A world shrunk by new communication and transportation technologies and linked by global trade, internationalists argued, meant nations and peoples were becoming more alike. Thus they desired the same prosperity, political freedom, human rights, and peace that the West enjoyed. Interstate relations now should be based on this “harmony of interests,” and managed by non-lethal transnational organizations rather than by force. Covenants and treaties like the Hague and Geneva Conventions, and institutions like the League of Nations and the International Court of Arbitration, could peacefully resolve conflicts among nations through diplomatic engagement, negotiation, and appeasement.

The Preamble to the First Hague Convention (1899) captures the idealism that would compromise foreign policy in the Thirties. The Convention’s aims were “the maintenance of the general peace” and “the friendly settlement of international disputes.” This goal was based on the “solidarity which unites the member of the society of civilized nations” and their shared desire for “extending the empire of law and of strengthening the appreciation of international justice.” Two decades later, the monstrous death and destruction of World War I should have shattered the delusion of such “solidarity” existing even among the “civilized nations.” Despite that gruesome lesson, Europe doubled down and created the League of Nations, which failed to stop the serial aggression that culminated in World War II.

But the League wasn’t the only manifestation of naïve internationalism. The Locarno Treaty of 1925 welcomed Germany back into the community of nations with a seat on the League of Nations council. Nobel Peace prizes, and wish-fulfilling headlines like the New York Times’ “France and Germany Bar War Forever,” were all that resulted. The Kellogg-Briand pact of 1928 “condemn[ed] recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce[d] it as an instrument of national policy” in interstate relations. The signing powers asserted that “the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts . . . shall never be sought except by pacific means.”

All the future Axis Powers signed the treaty, and they all soon shredded these “parchment barriers.” In the next few years, Japan invaded Manchuria, Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland in gross violation of the Versailles Treaty, and Italy invaded Ethiopia. By the time Germany annexed Austria, and Neville Chamberlain’s faith in negotiation and appeasement handed Czechoslovakia to Hitler, all these treaties and conventions and conferences were dead letters, and the League of Nations was exposed as a “cockpit in the tower of Babel,” as Churchill suggested after the First World War.

However, such graphic and costly evidence showing the folly of “covenants without the sword,” as Hobbes put it, did not discredit this dangerous idealism over the following decades. Indeed, it lies behind the disasters of Obama’s foreign policy. Just consider his “outreach” to our enemies, his acknowledgement of our own “imperfections,” his reliance on toothless U.N. Security Council Resolutions, his preference for non-lethal economic sanctions to pressure adversaries, and his belief that negotiated settlements and agreements can achieve peace and good relations even with our fiercest enemies. All reflect the same failure to recognize that our adversaries in fact do not sincerely want to reach an agreement, for the simple reason they are not in fact “just like us,” and so they do not want peace and prosperity and good relations with their neighbors and the “world community.”

The catalogue of Obama’s failures is long and depressing. The “reset” with Russia and promise of “flexibility,” the empty “red line” threats against Bashar al Assad, the arrogant dismissal of a metastasizing ISIS as a “jayvee” outfit, the alienation of allies like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, the cultivation of the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood, the ill-conceived overthrow of Muammar Ghaddafi, and the rhetoric of guilt and self-abasement are just the most noteworthy failures. The nuclear deal with Iran, of course, is the premier monument to this folly. Yet despite the increasing evidence of its futility­­––Iran’s saber-rattling in the Gulf, capture of U.S. military personnel, genocidal rhetoric, and testing of missiles in blatant violation of a U.N. Security Council resolution–– Obama still clings to this internationalist delusion.

A recent article in The Atlantic on Obama’s foreign policy shows, despite his protestations of hardheaded “realism,” that he has not learned from his failures. Thus he still thinks that the vigorous use of force is usually an unnecessary and dangerous mistake, and that verbal persuasion and diplomatic engagement are more effective. He also still believes that “multilateralism regulates [U.S.] hubris” of the sort that George W. Bush showed when he recklessly invaded Iraq, and that American foreign policy has frequently displayed.

Obama’s delusional faith in rhetoric, especially his own, comes through in his rationale for the infamous 2009 Cairo speech: “I was hoping that my speech could trigger a discussion, could create space for Muslims to address the real problems they are confronting—problems of governance, and the fact that some currents of Islam have not gone through a reformation that would help people adapt their religious doctrines to modernity.” The idea that Obama’s mere words could start a “discussion” that would transform 14-century-old religious doctrines fundamentally inimical to liberal democracy, human rights, and all the other Western goods we live by, is a fantasy. Obama’s self-regard recalls Neville Chamberlain’s boast after his meeting with Hitler at Bad Godesberg that he “had established some degree of personal influence with Herr Hitler.”

Or consider Obama’s take on Vladimir Putin:

He understands that Russia’s overall position in the world is significantly diminished. And the fact that he invades Crimea or is trying to prop up Assad doesn’t suddenly make him a player. You don’t see him in any of these meetings out here helping to shape the agenda. For that matter, there’s not a G20 meeting where the Russians set the agenda around any of the issues that are important.

A “player,” in Obama’s foreign policy universe, is a leader who uses “smart power” like diplomacy and negotiated deals, and recognizes that the use of force will backfire and lead to costly “quagmires.” As Secretary of State John Kerry suggested, Putin is using outdated “19th century” instruments of foreign policy like military force in a world that presumably has evolved beyond it.

In contrast, a genuine “player,” as Obama fancies himself, attends summits and conferences, such as the useless climate change conference in Paris, and “sets the agenda.” And like his rationale for the Cairo speech, as the leader of the world’s greatest power, his rhetoric alone can be a force for change. Thus just saying that Syria’s “Assad must go,” while doing nothing to achieve that end, is still useful, and refusing to honestly identify the traditional Islamic foundations of modern jihadism will build good will among Muslims and turn them against the “extremists.”

Meanwhile, Putin and Iran fight and bomb and kill in Syria and Iraq, and now they are the big “players” in a region that the U.S. once dominated, but that now serves the interests of Russia and Iran. I’m reminded of Demosthenes’ scolding of the Athenians for refusing to confront Phillip II of Macedon: “Where either side devotes its time and energy, there it succeeds the better––Phillip in action, but you in argument.”

In other words, for Obama as for Chamberlain, appeasing words rather than forceful deeds are the key to foreign policy––precisely the belief that led England to disastrously underestimate Hitler until it was too late. And that same belief has turned the Middle East into a Darwinian jungle of clashing tribes, sects, and nations.

Obama wraps his foreign policy of retreat in claims to “realist” calculations of America’s security and genuine interests, and buttresses his claim by citing his strategically inconsequential drone killings. But such rhetoric hides an unwillingness to risk consequential action and pay its political costs. And it reflects a commitment to the internationalist idealism that gives diplomatic verbal processes an almost magical power to transform inveterate enemies into helpful partners. Europe tried that in the Thirties, and it led to disaster. That’s a much more important lesson from that sorry decade’s history than the lurid fantasies about fascism coming to America on the wings of Trump’s rhetoric.

Judicial Watch Wants to Question Hillary’s Muslim Aide on Emails

March 16, 2016

Judicial Watch Wants to Question Hillary’s Muslim Aide on Emails

By: David Israel Published: March 16th, 2016

Source: The Jewish Press » » Judicial Watch Wants to Question Hillary’s Muslim Aide on Emails

Huma Abedin with husband Anthony Weiner. / Photo credit: Zennie Abraham

The watchdog group Judicial Watch on Tuesday filed a plan for “narrowly tailored discovery” into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email matter with a federal court. Judicial Watch’s discovery plan seeks the testimony of eight current and former State Department officials, including Clinton’s two top aides at the State Department Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills. Others on the list are top State Department official Patrick Kennedy, and former State IT expert Bryan Pagliano.

Judicial Watch’s plan says that “based on information learned during discovery, the deposition of Mrs. Clinton may be necessary” but would only occur with permission by the Court.

During a court hearing on February 23, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted Judicial Watch’s motion for discovery into whether the State Department and Clinton deliberately thwarted the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for six years.  The discovery arises in a Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit that seeks records about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former Deputy Chief of Staff to Clinton.  The lawsuit was reopened because of revelations about the clintonemail.com system.

Huma Abedin was Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff and a senior adviser throughout her four years as Secretary of State and also had an email account on clintonemail.com. Abedin, who now serves as vice chairwoman of Clinton’s 2016 campaign for President, is married to Anthony Weiner, the former Congressman from New York who resigned in disgrace. Abedin was born in Kalamazoo, Michigan, but at the age of two moved with her family to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where she was raised and lived until returning to the United States at age 18.