Full Measure Episode 32: May 08, 2016 (P1) – Child trafficking via YouTube, May 9, 2016
(But it’s an “act of love.” For whom? The children or those who use and abuse them?– DM)
Archive for May 9, 2016
Why Middle Eastern Leaders Are Talking to Putin, Not Obama
May 9, 2016Why Middle Eastern Leaders Are Talking to Putin, Not Obama, Politico, Dennis Ross, May 8, 2016
John Hinderaker at Power Line writes,
Dennis Ross is a respected, if thoroughly conventional, expert on the Middle East. A Democrat, he has served in both Republican and Democratic administrations as an adviser and envoy. Ross served in the State Department as Hillary Clinton’s Special Advisor for the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia. Subsequently, he joined President Obama’s National Security Council staff as a Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for the Central Region, which includes the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, Pakistan and South Asia. So when Ross writes, in Politico, that Obama’s foreign policy weakness is hurting American interests, we should take notice.
— DM)
Putin and Middle Eastern leaders understand the logic of coercion. It is time for us to reapply it.
*****************************
The United States has significantly more military capability in the Middle East today than Russia—America has 35,000 troops and hundreds of aircraft; the Russians roughly 2,000 troops and, perhaps, 50 aircraft—and yet Middle Eastern leaders are making pilgrimages to Moscow to see Vladimir Putin these days, not rushing to Washington. Two weeks ago, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu traveled to see the Russian president, his second trip to Russia since last fall, and King Salman of Saudi Arabia is planning a trip soon. Egypt’s president and other Middle Eastern leaders have also made the trek to see Putin.
Why is this happening, and why on my trips to the region am I hearing that Arabs and Israelis have pretty much given up on President Barack Obama? Because perceptions matter more than mere power: The Russians are seen as willing to use power to affect the balance of power in the region, and we are not.
Putin’s decision to intervene militarily in Syria has secured President Bashar Assad’s position and dramatically reduced the isolation imposed on Russia after the seizure of Crimea and its continuing manipulation of the fighting in Ukraine. And Putin’s worldview is completely at odds with Obama’s. Obama believes in the use of force only in circumstances where our security and homeland might be directly threatened. His mindset justifies pre-emptive action against terrorists and doing more to fight the Islamic State. But it frames U.S. interests and the use of force to support them in very narrow terms. It reflects the president’s reading of the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan, and helps to explain why he has been so reluctant to do more in Syria at a time when the war has produced a humanitarian catastrophe, a refugee crisis that threatens the underpinnings of the European Union, and helped to give rise to Islamic State. And, it also explains why he thinks that Putin cannot gain—and is losing—as a result of his military intervention in Syria.
But in the Middle East it is Putin’s views on the uses of coercion, including force to achieve political objectives, that appears to be the norm, not the exception—and that is true for our friends as well as adversaries. The Saudis acted in Yemen in no small part because they feared the United States would impose no limits on Iranian expansion in the area, and they felt the need to draw their own lines. In the aftermath of the nuclear deal, Iran’s behavior in the region has been more aggressive, not less so, with regular Iranian forces joining the Revolutionary Guard now deployed to Syria, wider use of Shiite militias, arms smuggling into Bahrain and the eastern province of Saudi Arabia, and ballistic missile tests.
Russia’s presence has not helped. The Russian military intervention turned the tide in Syria and, contrary to Obama’s view, has put the Russians in a stronger position without imposing any meaningful costs on them. Not only are they not being penalized for their Syrian intervention, but the president himself is now calling Vladimir Putin and seeking his help to pressure Assad—effectively recognizing who has leverage. Middle Eastern leaders recognize it as well and realize they need to be talking to the Russians if they are to safeguard their interests. No doubt, it would be better if the rest of the world defined the nature of power the way Obama does. It would be better if, internationally, Putin were seen to be losing. But he is not.
This does not mean that we are weak and Russia is strong. Objectively, Russia is declining economically and low oil prices spell increasing financial troubles—a fact that may explain, at least in part, Putin’s desire to play up Russia’s role on the world stage and his exercise of power in the Middle East. But Obama’s recent trip to Saudi Arabia did not alter the perception of American weakness and our reluctance to affect the balance of power in the region. The Arab Gulf states fear growing Iranian strength more than they fear the Islamic State—and they are convinced that the administration is ready to acquiesce in Iran’s pursuit of regional hegemony. Immediately after the president’s meeting at the Gulf Cooperation Council summit, Abdulrahman al-Rashed, a journalist very well connected to Saudi leaders, wrote: “Washington cannot open up doors to Iran allowing it to threaten regional countries … while asking the afflicted countries to settle silently.”
As I hear on my visits to the region, Arabs and Israelis alike are looking to the next administration. They know the Russians are not a force for stability; they count on the United States to play that role. Ironically, because Obama has conveyed a reluctance to exercise American power in the region, many of our traditional partners in the area realize they may have to do more themselves. That’s not necessarily a bad thing unless it drives them to act in ways that might be counterproductive. For example, had the Saudis been more confident about our readiness to counter the Iranian-backed threats in the region, would they have chosen to go to war in Yemen—a costly war that not surprisingly is very difficult to win and that has imposed a terrible price? Obama has been right to believe that the regional parties must play a larger role in fighting the Islamic State. He has, unfortunately, been wrong to believe they would do so if they thought we failed to see the bigger threat they saw and they doubted our credibility.
Indeed, so long as they question American reliability, there will be limits to how much they will expose themselves—whether in fighting the Islamic State, not responding to Russian entreaties, or even thinking about assuming a role of greater responsibility for Palestinian compromises on making peace with Israel. To take advantage of their recognition that they may need to run more risks and assume more responsibility in the region, they will want to know that America’s word is good and there will be no more “red lines” declared but unfulfilled; that we see the same threats they do; and that U.S. leaders understand that power affects the landscape in the region and will not hesitate to reassert it.
Several steps would help convey such an impression:
⧫ Toughen our declaratory policy toward Iran about the consequences of cheating on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to include blunt, explicit language on employing force, not sanctions, should the Iranians violate their commitment not to pursue or acquire a nuclear weapon;
⧫ Launch contingency planning with GCC states and Israel—who themselves are now talking—to generate specific options for countering Iran’s growing use of Shiite militias to undermine regimes in the region. (A readiness to host quiet three-way discussions with Arab and Israeli military planners would signal we recognize the shared threat perceptions, the new strategic realities, and the potentially new means to counter both radical Shiite and Sunni threats.)
⧫ Be prepared to arm the Sunni tribes in Iraq if Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi continues to be blocked from doing so by the Iranians and the leading militias;
⧫ In Syria, make clear that if the Russians continue to back Assad and do not force him to accept the Vienna principles (a cease-fire, opening humanitarian corridors, negotiations and a political transition), they will leave us no choice but to work with our partners to develop safe havens with no-fly zones.
Putin and Middle Eastern leaders understand the logic of coercion. It is time for us to reapply it.
New UK campaign – it’s ‘payback time’ for the EU
May 9, 2016New UK campaign – it’s ‘payback time’ for the EU, Israel National News, Ari Yashar, May 9, 2016
As the UK is poised ahead of a fateful vote on whether or not to remain in the EU, a group of concerned British ex-pats and Israelis have launched a new “Support Israel-Leave Europe” campaign to get Britain out of the EU and stop helping its efforts against the Jewish state.
The campaign, which is funded by Jewish land rights watchdog Regavim and whose website can be viewed here, has launched a humorous video of Hamas terrorists calling on the UK to stay in the EU to continue helping fund the terrorists in their fight against Israel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=vO654XRQ7FI
Regavim’s work on the project comes amid their legal battle against the EU over its funding of illegal Arab settlements in Area C, the region in Judea and Samaria designated as being under full Israeli control by the 1994 Oslo Accords and which contains all the Jewish residents. Area A is under complete Arab control and only security in Area B is controlled by Israel.
The new “Support Israel-Leave Europe” campaign presents several major reasons why those who support the Jewish state should want to see Britain leave and consequently weaken the EU.
Firstly, the EU has paid millions in aid money to the Palestinians, a large portion of which is going directly to pay the salaries of terrorist murderers.
Another strike against the EU is its funding of illegal Arab buildings in Area C, as it has built over 1,000 structures in the region to create a de-facto state of “Palestine” there.
The campaign also argues the EU’s recent campaign to label all Jewish products made in Judea, Samaria, eastern Jerusalem and the Golan Heights is a form of state-sponsored anti-Semitism, and finally it notes that the EU provides huge budgets for hundreds of virulently anti-Israeli NGOs to support their work delegitimizing Israel and conducting lawfare against it.
“For decades the European Union has meddled in Israeli affairs to the detriment of the Jewish State, for thousands of Israel supporters in the United Kingdom and ex-pats around the globe, it’s pay back time,” said Ari Briggs, Regavim’s international director.
“We call on everyone who supports Israel to ‘vote leave’ and deal a major blow to this mammoth bureaucracy that has an unhealthy obsession with Israel.”
Briggs warned that “the double standard in which the EU holds Israel, is nothing short of state-sponsored anti-Semitism. We encourage all eligible ex-pats in Israel and elsewhere to make sure they are on the electoral registry before the June 7th deadline to ensure they can vote, all the information needed is provided on our website.”
Muslim Police Chief Says ‘Offending Culture, Religion And Tradition’ Not Protected As Free Speech
May 9, 2016Muslim Police Chief Says ‘Offending Culture, Religion And Tradition’ Not Protected As Free Speech
9 May 2016
Youtube
A Muslim Police Chief Inspector for Greater Manchester has indicated that, according to his understanding, “Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of offending culture, religion or tradition”.
Chief Inspector Umer Khan made the statement on social media this weekend, and was immediately questioned by alarmed secular, and free speech campaigners.
He then apologised to those defending the right to be offensive for any “offence cause”, and argued that, “free speech should be used to promote tolerance & respect all.”
“[The statement regarding free speech] was a thought after a moving visit to Auschwitz”, he added.
When asked if Mr. Khan and the police force generally support the right to offend religious beliefs, the Greater Manchester Police press office told Breitbart London: “I don’t think we support anyone who would want to say anything offence[sic]”.
“It’s a storm in a tea cup… It’s about promoting tolerance, freedom of speech, that’s all he meant with it. He didn’t mean for it to be taken in an offensive way at all… it’s ironic, freedom of speech is what he’s now getting in trouble for”, the press office added.
A Greater Manchester Police Spokesperson added in an official statement: “A GMP Chief Inspector made a post on a personal Twitter account which has been taken out of context.
“He has apologised for any concern caused, which wasn’t the intention and has deleted the post.”
Speaking at the Jewish representative council of Greater Manchester last year, the senior Muslim police officer warned that religious tension was increasing in the city, and said police would tackle perceived “hate speech”.
“I am proud to be a police officer working in Greater Manchester and proud to be a Muslim. We all need to respect each other’s religions”, he said.
Continuing: “Sadly, what is happening in other parts of the world is now coming to impact on the streets of our local communities where we like to think there is supposed to be peace, harmony, respect and tolerance.
“Over the last few years I have seen an increase in tensions between different communities and there have been massive increases in hate crime [against both Muslims and Jews]”, he said.
To tackle the perceived “hate speech”, Mr. Kahn explained how Greater Manchester Police have launch a ‘We Stand Together’ campaign, which has been promoted alongside a phone app to make reporting perceived “hate crimes” easier.
However, a writer at the Godless Spell Checker blog, which first reported Mr. Khan’s Tweet, gave a well rehearsed argument for why “offending’” religion is important, and not always a “hate crime”.
“Of course, any thinking person knows that [offending dogma is] exactly what freedom of speech means. Speech can never truly be ‘free’ unless it includes the right to say things some people may not enjoy hearing.
“Indeed, the right to ‘blaspheme’, mock sacred cows and challenge taboos is what has led to progress in any civil society. The price for this has always been ‘offense’. And the great thing about ‘offense’ is that it’s cheap.
“By Umer Khan’s understanding, we are not free to offend people who endorse FGM, denigrate gay people as ‘sinners’ or think the appropriate punishment for adultery is death by stoning. It’s their ‘culture’, ‘tradition’ and ‘religion’ after all.”
Mr. Khan has been a police officer for more than twenty years, yet this re-interpretation of free speech comes at a time when British police are increasing their efforts to prosecute any “offensive” posts made on social media.
Just this week, a man from North Lanarkshire was arrested and detained for making a comedy video of his dog acting like a Nazi. According to the Daily Mail, police said the arrest should be a warning that videos which cause offence will not be tolerated.
In April this year, Glasgow Police threatened social media users, ordering them to be “kind” and not “hurtful” unless they wanted to “receive a visit… this weekend”.
The force also investigated the provocative conservative commentator Katie Hopkins for an “offensive” joke about a Scottish nurse being treated for Ebola.
In February this year, Scottish Police arrested a 41-year-old man under the Communications Act after receiving a report of a supposedly “offensive” comment made on Facebook regarding Syrian migrants.
Iranian Basij Militia to Infiltrate Civilian Life to Stamp Out Dissent
May 9, 2016Iranian Basij Militia to Infiltrate Civilian Life to Stamp Out Dissent, Clarion Project, May 9, 2016
(With the Iran Scam firmly in place, The Islamic Republic again demonstrates how “moderate” it has become. — DM)
Members of the Basij voluntary militia (Photo: © Reuters)
Iran plans to use its volunteer Basij militia as an urban force to stamp out dissent in every aspect of life in the Islamic republic.
As reported in the Washington Times, the force will be dispersed from “villages to schools to sports clubs to factories” to push the ayatollah’s agenda.
The Times quotes a report by the U.S. Army’s foreign military studies office at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas.
“While the law enforcement forces might conduct more regular police work, Basij operations tend to focus more on countering ideological enemies and encouraging fealty to the Islamic Revolution through after-school programming and university organizations, and by policing morality,” writes analyst Michael Rubin.
The fact that 99 percent of reformist candidates for the recent parliamentary elections were disqualified “indicates a desire by the clerical hierarchy within Iran to consolidate more hard-line control,” he said, adding, “Should it be implemented, it suggests that the regime may be preparing for a new cultural revolution to weed out elements of reformism or moderation.”
At the same time, 7,000 male and female plain-clothed officers have begun patrolling the streets of Iran to insure, among other things, that women dress in a proper fashion.
The expanded “morality police” comes after pressure from conservative parliamentarians to further clamp down on women’s rights.
World Affairs Journal explains the new officers “blend in and mix with people as much as possible, then report the “criminals” they find, such as women who wear fingernail polish or have too much hair showing under their headscarves, to uniformed authorities.”
Al-Qaeda Leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri: The Mujahideen In Syria Must Unite; Syrians Must Beware Both Saudi And ‘Crusader’ Plots
May 9, 2016(Does Al-Zawahiri show strength or weakness? — DM)
The following report is now a complimentary offering from MEMRI’s Jihad and Terrorism Threat Monitor (JTTM). For JTTM subscription information, click here.
On May 8, 2016, Al-Qaeda issued a new audio message from its leader, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, after several month of silence. In the message, Al-Zawahiri calls on the jihad groups in Syria to unite because this is a matter of life and death for them. He urges the Muslims of Syria to reject the initiatives of Saudi Arabia and its allies in the region, and assures them that the jihadis will defeat “the Eastern and Western Crusaders war machine” – i.e., both Russia and America – as well as their allies, the Syrian regime and Iran. Addressing the relationship between Al-Qaeda and its affiliate in Syria, Jabhat Al-Nusra (JN), he hints that the ties between them are strong and that they should remain so, for the world will not accept JN as legitimate in any case, unless it completely changes its nature to suit the superpowers.
The following are excerpts from the message:
“Syria today is the hope of the Islamic nation, for [its revolution] is the only Arab Spring revolution that is taking the correct path – the path of da’wa and jihad for the sake of strengthening the shar’ia and enacting [its laws], and for the sake of striving to establish a righteous caliphate, not the caliphate of Ibrahim Al-Badri [i.e., Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi]…
“This is why the world’s arch-criminals [i.e., the superpowers and the international community] have come together to prevent the establishment of a jihadi state in Syria… and have hatched [various] plots and [exerted various] pressures… However, Allah willed it that there should remain one jihad-fighting group [i.e., JN and its allies], comprising the best of theansar [local fighters] and muhajiroun [foreign fighters], which cleaves to the truth and does not stray from it. The Muslims in Syria rallied around this group, seeing the difference between its correct path and the false path of the extremist Khawarij, the new takfiris [i.e., ISIS]…
“My brothers the mujahideen everywhere, our duty today is to defend the jihad in Syria against the plots being hatched against it, plots which are directed by the pampered daughter of Britain and proxy of the U.S., the state of the Sa’ud [royal] family [namely Saudi Arabia] and its lackeys in the region. The aim of all these plots is to establish a regime in Syria that will present itself as Islamic but will be based on a false Islam that coexists in harmony with secularism and with the concept of the nation-state, with extremist nationalism and with the regime of the international arch-criminals. [This regime] will sacrifice the lives of the hundreds of thousands who took to the streets to call out the natural slogan: ‘[the Prophet] Muhammad is our commander and our lord forever.’
“The greatest problem facing the world order and our apostate leaders and their governments [today] is that the mujahideen in Syria are standing on the borders of Palestine and threatening what they call ‘the state of Israel,’ [which is actually] the 51st American state and the largest military base outside America. Therefore, these criminals are compelled to cooperate in order to fight this jihad, kill it while it is still small, and divert it from its path [towards the path] of nationalism, secularism and capitulation to the world order of [these] arch-criminals. This is why they hatch one plot after another: Geneva, Riyadh, ceasefires, resolutions by the arch-criminals’ Security Council– an endless series of deceptions, lies and duplicities.
“Our duty today is to support the jihad in Syria with all our might and rally around it, all of us, [both] light and heavy.[1]Our duty today is to call for unity among the muhajideen in Syria until it is liberated from the secularist Nusairi [i.e., Alawite] regime, its partners, the rawafid Safavis [i.e., Shi’ite Persians, referring to Iran], and their allies, the Russians and the Western Crusaders – until a righteous, jihadi Islamic entity is established in this land.
“My brothers the mujahideen in Syria, who come from all over the world, today unity is a matter of life and death for you. You can unite and live a life of honor, or you can stay divided and be devoured, one by one.”
Al-Zawahiri then moves on to address the issue of the organizational ties between Al-Qaeda and JN: “There remains an open question that is dealt with extensively in an attempt to distract the Muslims in Syria from their true enemies, namely [the question of] the ties between Al-Qaeda and the dear, honorable and glorious Jabhat Al-Nusra, with whom we are proud to have relations and pray to Allah that he enhance its success and steadfastness. Let me say briefly and clearly: We have said time and again that, if and when the heroic people of Syria establish an Islamic government and choose for themselves a leader, whoever they choose will be acceptable to us. We are not power-hungry. We do not want to rule over the Muslims; we want the shari’a to rule and we want to be ruled as Muslims according to Islam. We call for unity among the mujahedeen in Syria, and urge them to agree on the establishment of a jihad-fighting and righteous Islamic government… that will wage jihad, liberate the lands, and strive to liberate Al-Aqsa and establish a caliphate in the path of prophecy. JN’s organizational affiliation will never pose an obstacle to these great objectives that we, as part of the Islamic nation, hope for. [Unlike ISIS] we do not presume to be the patrons [of the Islamic nation], nor do we pounce upon it, demanding to that it swear loyalty to unknown people and to a caliph of surprises.
“Besides, would the arch-criminals accept JN if it left Al-Qaeda? Or will they obligate it to conduct negotiations with the criminal murderers, and then compel it to obey the agreements of abasement and shame and then capitulate to the governments of corruption and subordination… We in Al-Qaeda do not accept a pledge of loyalty unless it is voluntary. We do not force anyone to swear loyalty to us. We do not threaten to blow up or behead [our opponents]. We do not brand anyone fighting against us an apostate, as do the new Khawrij [ISIS], who make baseless claims.
“Al-Zawahiri concludes with an appeal to the Muslims in Syria: “We are part of you. Though we come from different countries, religion and faith unite us. We are with you, waging one war on many fronts against the Crusader arch-criminals and their apostate partners. Your victory is our victory, your dignity is our dignity, and your strength is our strength. Stand fast, oh servants of Allah, against the savage attack of the Crusaders from East and West [the Russians and Americans], who have forged an alliance with the secular Nusairis and the criminal rawafids. Stand fast and fight. Do not let the Crusader war machine intimidate you.” Citing former Taliban leader Mullah Muhammad Omar, Al-Zawahiri states that “Allah promised us victory,” and adds: “It was trust in Allah alone that shattered this Eastern and Western [i.e., Russian and American] Crusader war machine in Afghanistan and later in Iraq, and it is [faith in Allah] that will shatter it in Syria, Allah willing. Beware the seductions of the traitorous and subordinate apostate governments, which will not give you either freedom or dignity, because one who lacks something [himself] cannot provide it [to others]. Your deeds must justify your words when you say: ‘death and not abasement.'”
_________________________________
[1] Koran 9:41: ” Go forth, whether light or heavy, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the cause of Allah.”
Iran’s Plans to Control a Palestinian State
May 9, 2016Iran’s Plans to Control a Palestinian State, Gatestone Institute, Khaled Abu Toameh, May 9, 2016
(Please see also, Op-Ed: Trump’s “peace through strength” for USA also applies to Israel. — DM)
♦ The Iran nuclear deal, marking its first anniversary, does not appear to have had a calming effect on the Middle East.
♦ Iran funnels money to Hamas and Islamic Jihad because they share its desire to eliminate Israel and replace it with an Islamic empire. The Iranian leaders want to see Hamas killing Jews every day, with no break. Ironically, Hamas has become too “moderate” for the Iranian leadership because it is not doing enough to drive Jews out of the region.
♦ More Palestinian terror group leaders may soon perform the “pilgrimage” to their masters in Tehran. If this keeps up, the Iranians themselves will puppeteer any Palestinian state that is created in the region.
The Iran nuclear deal, marking its first anniversary, does not appear to have had a calming effect on the Middle East. The Iranians seem to be deepening their intervention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in general and in internal Palestinian affairs in particular.
This intervention is an extension of Iran’s ongoing efforts to expand its influence in Arab and Islamic countries, including Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Lebanon and some Gulf states. The nuclear deal between Tehran and the world powers has not stopped the Iranians from proceeding with their global plan to export their “Islamic Revolution.” On the contrary, the general sense among Arabs and Muslims is that in the wake of the nuclear deal, Iran has accelerated its efforts to spread its influence.
Iran’s direct and indirect presence in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon has garnered some international attention, yet its actions in the Palestinian arena are still ignored by the world.
That Iran provides financial and military aid to Palestinian groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad has never been a secret. In fact, both the Iranians and the Palestinian radical groups have been boasting about their relations.
Iran funnels money to these groups because they share its desire to eliminate Israel and replace it with an Islamic empire. Like Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas and Islamic Jihad agreed to play the role of Tehran’s proxies and enablers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Iran used to funnel money to Hamas and Islamic Jihad because they share its desire to eliminate Israel and replace it with an Islamic empire. Relations between Iran and Hamas foundered a few years back, when Hamas leaders refused to support the Iranian-backed Syrian dictator, Bashar Assad. Pictured above: Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal (left) confers with Iranian “Supreme Leader” Ali Khamenei, in 2010. (Image source: Office of the Supreme Leader)
But puppets must remain puppets. Iran gets nasty when its dummies do not play according to its rules. This is precisely what happened with Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
Relations between Iran and Hamas foundered a few years back over the crisis in Syria. Defying their masters in Tehran, Hamas leaders refused to declare support for the Iranian-backed Syrian dictator, Bashar Assad. Things between Iran and Hamas have been pretty bad ever since.
First, the Assad government closed down Hamas offices in Damascus. Second, Assad expelled the Hamas leadership from Syria. Third, Iran suspended financial and military aid to Hamas, further aggravating the financial crisis that the Gaza-based Islamist movement had already been facing.
Islamic Jihad got it next. Iranian mullahs woke up one morning to realize that Islamic Jihad leaders have been a bit unfaithful. Some of the Islamic Jihad leaders were caught flirting with Iran’s Sunni rivals in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries. Even worse, the Iranians discovered that Islamic Jihad was still working closely with their erstwhile allies in the Gaza Strip, Hamas.
Iran had had high hopes for Islamic Jihad replacing Hamas as Tehran’s darling, and major proxy in the Palestinian arena. But here were Islamic Jihad leaders and activists working with their cohorts in Hamas, in apparent disregard of Papa Iran.
The mullahs did not lose much time. Outraged by Islamic Jihad’s apparent disloyalty, Iran launched its own terror group inside the Gaza Strip: Al-Sabireen (The Patient Ones). This group, which currently consists of several hundred disgruntled ex-Hamas and ex-Islamic Jihad members, was meant to replace Islamic Jihad the same way Islamic Jihad was supposed to replace Hamas in the Gaza Strip — in accordance with Iran’s scheme.
Lo and behold: it is hard to get things right with Iran. Al-Sabireen has also failed to please its masters in Tehran and is not “delivering.” Palestinian sources in the Gaza Strip say that Iran has realized that the investment in Al-Sabireen has not been worthwhile because the group has not been able to do anything “dramatic” in the past two years. By “dramatic,” the sources mean that Al-Sabireen has neither emerged as a serious challenger to Islamic Jihad or Hamas, and has not succeeded in killing enough Israelis.
So Iran has gone running back to its former bedfellow, Islamic Jihad.
For now, Iran is not prepared fully to bring Hamas back under its wings. Hamas, for the Iranians, is a “treacherous” movement, thanks to its periodic temporary ceasefires with Israel. The Iranian leaders want to see Hamas killing Jews every day, with no break. Ironically, Hamas has become too “moderate” for the Iranian leadership because it is not doing enough to drive Jews out of the region.
That leaves Iran with the Islamic Jihad.
In a surprise move, the Iranians this week hosted Islamic Jihad leader Ramadan Shalah and senior officials from his organization, in a renewed bid to revive Islamic Jihad’s role as the major puppet of Tehran in the Gaza Strip. Islamic Jihad officials said that the visit has resulted in the resumption of Iranian financial aid to their cash-strapped organization. As a result of the rift between Islamic Jihad and Iran, the Iranians are said to have cut off nearly 90% of their financial aid to the Palestinian terror organization.
Some Palestinians, such as political analyst Hamadeh Fara’neh, see the rapprochement between Iran and Islamic Jihad as a response to the warming of relations between Hamas and Turkey. The Iranians, he argues, are unhappy with recent reports that suggested that Turkey was acting as a mediator between Hamas and Israel.
Other Palestinians believe that Iran’s real goal is to unite Islamic Jihad and Al-Sabireen so that they would become a real and realistic alternative to Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
Whatever Iran’s intentions may be, one thing is clear: The Iranians are taking advantage of the nuclear deal to move forward with their efforts to increase their influence over some Arab and Islamic countries. Iran is also showing that it remains very keen on playing a role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — one that emboldens radical groups that are bent on the destruction of Israel and that share the same values as the Islamic State terror group.
Iran’s latest courtship of Islamic Jihad is yet another attempt by the mullahs to deepen their infiltration of the Palestinian arena by supporting and arming any terror group that strives to smash Israel. For now, it seems that Hamas’s scheme is working, largely thanks to the apathy of the international community, where many believe that Iran has been declawed by the nuclear deal.
But more Palestinian terror group leaders may soon perform the “pilgrimage” to their masters in Tehran. If this keeps up, the Iranians themselves will puppeteer any Palestinian state that is created in the region. Their ultimate task, after all, is to use this state as a launching pad to destroy Israel. And the Iranians are prepared to fund and arm any Palestinian group that is willing to help achieve this goal.
Ralph Peters on Ben Rhodes: Stalin Could Have Used This Guy
May 9, 2016Ralph Peters Rips Obama’s ‘Chief Propagandist’ Ben Rhodes: Stalin Could Have Used This Guy
BY: Follow @JackHeretik
May 9, 2016 10:35 am
Source: Ralph Peters on Ben Rhodes: Stalin Could Have Used This Guy
Lt. Col. Ralph Peters blasted White House aide Ben Rhodes Monday, insisting that dictator Joseph Stalin could have used a “chief propagandist” like him when he was in power.
Peters was responding to a New York Times profile where, among other revelations, Rhodes boasted about using reporters and creating an “echo chamber” of Obama-friendly experts to sell the Iran nuclear deal.
Fox Business host Stuart Varney read out Rhodes’ Medium column posted Sunday where the Obama flack reversed course and said there was “no shortage of good reporting and analysis.” However, Varney pointed out, Rhodes “still misled” these people.
He asked Peters, a fierce critic of the Obama administration’s foreign policy, for his take.
“Well, let’s start with Ben Rhodes’ title,” Peters said. “It’s Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications. In other words, Chief Propagandist. And as a propagandist, he’s been very, very good. I mean, Joseph Stalin could have used this guy. But, really, if you look at what he said, he not only insulted journalists, just trashed them, he insulted the foreign policy community, the military, virtually everyone.
“Ben Rhodes was gleeful, gleeful in this brilliantly done article about how they put one over on the American people through manipulating journalists through this myth that they were only negotiating now with the Iranians because suddenly there were moderates in place when they’d been negotiating with the hard-liners for years before that. Then Ben Rhodes throws out the trope that, ‘Well, you know, if you don’t like this nuke deal, the only alternative is war.’ And that was nonsense.”
Peters later referred to Rhodes as being “just a wordsmith.”
The Republican Party Died Long Before Trump
May 9, 2016The Republican Party Died Long Before Trump, American Thinker, Brian C. Joondeph, May 9, 2016
(The Republican Establishment, not the Republican Party, is dead. The party is on a path leading in the direction its voters, rather than the Bush Dynasty, Romney, et al want it to go. That’s a good thing. — DM)
Donald Trump all but clinched the Republican Party nomination after his decisive win in Indiana. The post mortems have begun. Blame, recrimination, and threats, particularly from those who failed to secure the nomination for themselves or their favored candidate.
The headline of the week has been the death of the Grand Old Party. The Atlantic proclaimed, “The Day the Republican Party Died.” Perhaps Don McLean can be plucked from the shelves of the Rock and Roll Museum, dusted off, and tasked with writing a new song. “The three men I admired most, Jeb, Ted, and Mitt, caught the last #NeverTrump train for the coast.” Mr. McLean can work on the rhyming bit.
“RIP, GOP” wrote the Boston Globe. As did the NY Daily News, pronouncing the GOP dead in 2016. You get the idea. Did the Republican Party truly drop dead on the first Tuesday of May 2016? Or has the party suffered a long, terminal illness, sustained by extraordinary life support measures for the past few years, only to have Republican voters finally pull the plug during this election cycle?
I contend that the Republican Party was diagnosed with a terminal disease way back in 1988, almost thirty years ago. One might argue that when Ronald Reagan, on his last day in office, boarded his “last train for the coast”, was the day the GOP’s “music died.”
Think of other chronic medical diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, or cancer. The mind or body slowly fail, not typically in a linear fashion, but always in a long term unrelenting downward trajectory. There are improvements along the way, providing hope to those afflicted and their loved ones, but the hope is short lived, and the disease, despite a short pause, picks up where it left off.
The first sign of illness post Reagan was George HW Bush, in his acceptance speech at the RNC convention, calling for “a kinder and gentler nation.” Kinder and gentler than what? Obviously a repudiation of Reagan’s brand of conservatism, which candidate Bush once called “voodoo economics.” Perhaps HW looked back on eight years of Reagan and said to himself, “Bad news on the doorstep, I couldn’t take one more step.”
Next was George HW Bush’s famous pledge, “Read my lips. No new taxes.” Right out of the Republican Party playbook. Music to conservative ears. Cancer in remission. Until he turned his back on his pledge and raised taxes. Kicking the Republican Party in the teeth.
This paved the way for eight years of Bill and Hillary Clinton. “While the king was looking down, the jester stole his thorny crown.” King George HW Bush looked down with contempt at the Republican base and Bubba the jester not only stole the crown, but used Bush’s “no new taxes” words against him in the 1992 presidential campaign.
The patient was not dead however. Signs of life appeared as Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America in 1994 infused the GOP with lifesaving doses of “accountability, responsibility, and opportunity.“ New life, GOP control of Congress, and hope that the demise of the Republican Party had been arrested.
Enter a new era for the Republican Party in 2002 with George W Bush and his promise of “compassionate conservatism.” Just as with his father before him, more compassionate than what? Reagan’s conservatism? Newt’s Contract with America? Did this help or hurt the Republican Party?
“I went down to the sacred store, where I’d heard the music years before. But the man there said the music wouldn’t play.” Republicans heard the music of Reagan years before but Bush proclaimed the song was over. No conservative was George W Bush. Foolhardy and misguided military follies in the Middle East. Expansion of the federal education bureaucracy with Ted Kennedy via No Child Left Behind. Medicare Part D expansion increasing government control of healthcare. Promotion of open borders via amnesty. And a massive increase in government spending.
Enough to make voters wonder whether President George W Bush was a Republican or a Democrat. Republican voters “sang dirges in the dark,” staying home in 2006, handing Congress back to the Democrats. Quite the legacy for Bush and another turn for the worse in the health of the GOP.
In 2008, “a generation lost in space” saw the Republican Party on life support and voted for President Hope and Change. And change is what we got. But not for the better. In 2010 the GOP cancer went into remission, again in 2014, with two landslide midterm elections handing control of the House and Senate back to Republicans.
Was this the road to recovery for the Republican Party or just a brief pause in the GOP death rattle? Republican voters asked their party “for some happy news, but she just smiled and turned away.” The GOP-controlled Congress turned abruptly from its campaign promises. Spending continues unabated. Obamacare and Planned Parenthood remain fully funded. The IRS remains unpunished. Executive amnesty proceeds according to Obama’s wishes. Iran got its nuke deal. Endless executive orders mocking the separation of powers. Everything playing out as if Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were still in charge.
The EKG showed the Republican Party with a flat line, no pulse, no blood pressure, and no brain activity. “The day the music died.”
Along came Donald Trump. Not a conservative. Not even a politician. But a pragmatist able to identify the disease killing the Republican Party, offering a brash, politically incorrect, yet popular set of solutions for injecting life back into the party. Sixteen other candidates, all extremely accomplished in their own right, methodically destroyed and removed from the nomination race. The media and the GOP elites unable to respond or stop the Trump train. “No angel born in Hell could break that Satan’s spell.”
The candidates and the entire Republican establishment were perplexed and frustrated. “Oh and as I watched him on the stage, my hands were clenched in fists of rage.” They said #NeverTrump and promised to either vote for Hillary Clinton or sit out the presidential election entirely. The same party elites who told us to hold our noses and vote for McCain and Romney for the sake of “party unity” are now kicking sand and running home with all of their toys.
Yet they blame Donald Trump for the demise of the Republican Party, not realizing that all Trump did was act as the coroner, examining the GOP corpse, declaring it dead, and signing the death certificate. The Republican Party elites are, “Them good ole boys drinking whiskey and rye, singin’ this’ll be the day that I die.” Not realizing that they died decades ago.
The “Never Trump” Pouters
May 9, 2016The “Never Trump” Pouters, Front Page Magazine, David Horowitz, May 8, 2016
Reprinted from Breitbart.com.
The conservatives who have declared war on the primary victor are displaying a myopia that could be deadly in November when Trump will lead Republicans against a party that has divided the country, destroyed its borders, empowered its enemies and put 93 million Americans into dependency on the state. This reckless disregard for consequences is matched only by a blindness to what has made Trump the presumptive nominee. When he entered the Republican primaries a year ago Trump was given no chance of surviving even the first contest let alone becoming the Republican nominee. That was the view of all the experts, and especially those experts with the best records of prediction.
Trump – who had never held political office and had no experience in any political job – faced a field of sixteen tested political leaders, including nine governors and five senators from major states. Most of his political opponents were conservatives. During the primaries several hundred million dollars were spent in negative campaign ads – nastier and more personal than in any Republican primary in memory. At least 60,000 of those ads were aimed at Trump, attacking him as a fraud, a corporate predator, a not-so-closet liberal, an ally of Hillary Clinton, indistinguishable from Barack Obama, an ignoramus, and too crass to be president (Bill Clinton anyone?).
These negative ads were directed at Republican primary voters, a constituency well to the right of the party. These primary voters are a constituency that may be said to represent the heart of the conservative movement in America, and are generally more politically engaged and informed than most Republican voters. Trump won their support. He won by millions of votes – more votes from this conservative heartland than any Republican in primary history. To describe Trump as ignorant – as so many beltway intellectuals have – is merely to privilege book knowledge over real world knowledge, not an especially wise way to judge political leaders.
A chorus of detractors has attempted to dismiss Trump’s political victory as representing a mere plurality of primary voters, but how many candidates have won outright majorities among a field of seventeen, or five or even three? When the Republican primary contest was actually reduced to three, Trump beat the “true conservative,” Ted Cruz, with more than fifty percent of the votes. He did this in blue states and red states, and in virtually all precincts and among all Republican demographics. He clinched the nomination by beating Cruz with an outright majority in conservative Indiana.
In opposing the clear choice of the Republican primary electorate the “Never Trump” crowd is simply displaying their contempt for the most politically active Republican voters. This contempt was dramatically displayed during a CNN segment with Trump’s spokeswoman, Katrina Pierson, and Bill Kristol, the self-appointed guru of a Third Party movement whose only result can be to split the Republican ticket and provide Hillary with her best shot at the presidency. Pierson urged Kristol to help unify the Party behind its presumptive nominee. Kristol grinned and answered her: “You want leaders to become followers.” Could there be a more arrogant response? By what authority does Bill Kristol regard himself as a leader? Trump has the confidence of millions of highly committed and generally conservative Republican voters. That makes him a leader. Who does Bill Kristol lead except a coterie of inside-the-beltway foreign policy interventionists, who supported the fiasco in Libya that opened the door to al-Qaeda and ISIS?
I say this as someone who has written three books supporting the intervention in Iraq and who thinks Trump is dead wrong on this issue. However I also understand that the Bush administration did not defend the war the Democrats sabotaged, allowing its critics to turn it into a bad war in the eyes of the American people. Consequently, Trump’s attack on the intervention is a smart political move that will allow him to win over many Democrat, Independent and even conservative voters who think Iraq was a mistake and do not appreciate the necessity of that war or the tragedy of the Democrats’ opposition to it. You can’t reverse historical judgments in election year sound bites. Understanding this, instinctively or otherwise, makes Trump politically smarter than his Washington detractors.
Conservatives like Kristol claim to oppose Trump on principles but then turn to Mitt Romney for a Third Party run. This is the same Mitt Romney who as governor of Massachusetts was the father of Obamacare but ran against Obamacare in 2012. So much for principles.
“True conservatives” claim the Constitution as their bible. But, as everybody knows, the first principle of that document is tnat the people are sovereign. The people’s voice, expressed at the ballot box, determines who leads. The “Never Trump” conservatives don’t respect this principle. What other conclusion can be drawn from their arrogant repudiation of a candidate whose authority derives from the expressed will of the people? 
The Never Trump elites claim the voters are fools because Trump is “utterly unfit to be president by temperament, values and policy preferences.” This is the phrase used by Eliot A. Cohen a former Defense and State Department official in the Bush 41 and Bush 43 administrations. It is a sentiment common to most anti-Trump commentators.
But what can it possibly mean? During the first Republican debate, in front of a television audience of 17 million people, Jeb Bush took a pledge saying he would support whoever eventually won the Republican primaries. But as soon as the winner was declared, Bush reneged on his promise. Is telling the truth a presidential value? Or do the anti-Trumpers make allowances for politicians they support, cutting them slack that permits them to lie or change their minds when it is convenient to do so?
The anti-Trump crowd seems most concerned about the personal insults that Trump used successfully to defeat his formidable and more experienced rivals. Perhaps they are forgetting the hundred million dollars worth of personal insults and attacks that were directed at Rubio and Trump by Bush’s PAC, which the candidate himself never repudiated. Is it their view what is presidential is to have surrogates do your dirty work, while pretending to be innocent of the deed?
Trump has attempted to repair most of the insults he delivered by praising Cruz and Rubio and explaining that he was harsh on Bush because it was a competition and harsh things were being said about him in 60,000 negative ads. Moreover he would consider some of the rivals he had previously bruised to be his running mate. Trump has shown a magnanimity in victory that his antagonists are unable to show in defeat. I would call that presidential.
What about those policy preferences that allegedly disqualify Trump? In his original statement on immigration Trump should have said this. “I love Mexicans. I employ thousands of Mexicans. I want them to come here but I want them to come herelegally. If America has no borders we have no country. Here’s the problem: Millions of Mexicans are not coming here legally. Among the illegals being smuggled across our borders are 550,000 criminals who have committed rape, murder, robbery and felonies. This has to stop, and I’m going to stop it. I’m going to build a wall, and I’m going to make Mexico pay for it.
Unfortunately when Trump said words to this effect, he said them backwards. He began by saying Mexico is not sending its best people here, but sending rapists, murderers, drug dealers. It was only after that he said they are also sending good people. I love Mexicans. I employ thousands of Mexicans. I want them to come here, but legally.
Now it’s understandable that Democrats bent on sabotaging our borders should twist his words and make him sound like an anti-Mexican nativist. That’s what Democrats do. But it’s disgraceful when Republicans echo them. Similarly, Donald Trump is not against free trade, but wants the so-called free trade to be fair. Neither is Trump in favor of banning Muslim immigration. He wants a moratorium on Muslim immigration until a screening system is put in place so that we don’t simply open our doors to Muslims from a Taliban and al-Qaeda supporting nation like Pakistan who belong to a terrorist mosques and lie about their home addresses like the San Bernardino shooter. Every conservative should support that, and no conservative should join Democrats in lying about Trump’s position and calling it a permanent ban on Muslims.
Will Trump live up to the conservative promises he has made? Will he build the wall, and defend this country, and give his best effort to putting America’s interests first and making America great again? If you believe that Donald Trump takes the Trump name seriously, and wants to create a monument to his family and himself, it’s a good bet he will try to do just that. And Hillary won’t. She’ll do the opposite. And that is as much certainty about political outcomes as anyone in this life can expect.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments