Archive for August 18, 2016

Senator: U.S. Taxpayer Funds Potentially Diverted to Hamas Terrorists

August 18, 2016

Senator: U.S. Taxpayer Funds Potentially Diverted to Hamas Terrorists, Washington Free Beacon, August 18, 2016

hamas (1)Hamas militants of the Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades in Gaza City / AP

U.S. donations to “numerous humanitarian organizations” have been funneled to Hamas “to support its terror and military organizations,” according to Rubio and information disclosed by the Israeli government.

**********************

A leading Republican senator is calling on the Obama administration to launch a formal investigation into the potential diversion of U.S. taxpayer funds to organizations that have reportedly been infiltrated by the Hamas terror organization, according to new documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) is petitioning the State Department to investigate how much U.S. government and taxpayer money may have been given to charities recently discovered to have been secretly infiltrated by Hamas operatives, according to a letter sent by Rubio to Secretary of State John Kerry. He is also calling on the Obama administration to suspend all aid to Gaza until reviews can be undertaken to ensure funds are not disbursed to terror organizations.

U.S. donations to “numerous humanitarian organizations” have been funneled to Hamas “to support its terror and military organizations,” according to Rubio and information disclosed by the Israeli government.

Israeli authorities recently arrested employees working for the nonprofit organization World Vision and the United Nations Development Program. The employees were charged with providing material and financial support to Hamas. Both organizations have received funding from the United States.

Rubio is requesting that the State Department “investigate every allegation and use all resources to ensure American taxpayer dollars as well as individual private donations of Americans are not being used to fund terrorism,” according to the Thursday letter, a copy of which was obtained by the Free Beacon.

“Hamas officials have allegedly infiltrated numerous aid organizations as employees and used their access to redirect western aid to terrorist groups,” according to Rubio.

One individual, Mohammed El-Halabi, was employed as the Gaza director of World Vision. The Israeli government determined he was “a major figure in the terrorist/military arm of Hamas” and alleged that “El-Halabi has been taking advantage of his position to divert the humanitarian organization’s funds and resources from the needy to benefit Hamas’ terrorist and military activities.”

The United States is the world’s larger donor nation, meaning that funds allocated for humanitarian assistance may have been diverted to Hamas operations, according to Rubio.

“As the largest donor nation in the world, these reports of humanitarian assistance going to Hamas are very concerning,” he wrote. “We must ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars are not being siphoned off by murderous terrorist groups such as Hamas. U.S. taxpayers, many of whom donate their own money to charities such as World Vision, should also be able to do so with confidence that their money will not fund terrorism.”

Germany and Australia have already suspended all funding for World Vision programs in the Gaza Strip until a formal investigation is complete. Rubio is asking that the Obama administration to go further.

“I urge you to suspend all U.S. assistance to Gaza until a review of the controls in place to prevent a diversion of funds can occur,” Rubio writes. “The review should examine the mechanisms that exist to identify and stop any potential misuse of taxpayer dollars in Gaza as well as the auditing processes of organizations working in areas controlled by Hamas or any other terrorist group.”

Rubio said he is not surprised that Hamas has been exploiting charitable organizations in order to fund terrorism against Israel and the West.

“Although these allegations are shocking, I am not surprised that Hamas uses humanitarian aid to further its terror campaign against Israel,” he wrote. “Hamas routinely tortures journalists, kills dissidents, and uses civilians as human shields. Hamas is the leading cause of Palestinian suffering in Gaza, including apparently stealing millions of dollars of humanitarian aid that should have gone to the Palestinian people.”

Trump Will Face a Huge Challenge with U.S. Intelligence If He Wins

August 18, 2016

Trump Will Face a Huge Challenge with U.S. Intelligence If He Wins, Center for Security Policy, Fred Fleitz, August 18, 2016

cia logo

Before his classified national-security briefing yesterday, Donald Trump said he didn’t trust U.S. intelligence. His comments attracted the expected condemnations and ridicule from the media pundits and foreign-policy experts. However, based on my 25 years working in U.S. intelligence, I believe Trump’s concerns are well-founded.

On Wednesday, Trump received the intelligence briefing traditionally provided by the U.S. Intelligence Community to newly nominated presidential candidates. This briefing was preceded by calls from the Clinton campaign, other Democrats, and, privately, by some intelligence officials that Trump be denied these briefings because, they claim, he can’t be trusted to protect classified information.

Harry Reid, the top Democrat in the Senate, actually asked intelligence analysts to give Trump fake briefings.

The Washington Post’s intelligence reporter Greg Miller reported on July 28 that a senior intelligence official told Miller privately that he would refuse to brief Trump because of concerns about Trump’s alleged admiration of Russian president Putin and because “he’s been so uninterested in the truth and so reckless with it when he sees it.” Reuters ran a similar story on June 2, reporting that eight senior security officials said they had concerns about briefing Trump; Reuters did not indicate how many of the officials cited were intelligence officials or Obama appointees.

These calls to deny intelligence briefings to a presidential candidate are unprecedented, but they also reflect a serious problem within the U.S. intelligence community that awaits a possible Trump administration: the politicization of American intelligence by the Left.

I saw this constantly during my 19 years as a CIA analyst. CIA officers frequently tried to undermine CIA directors Casey and Gates because they disagreed with President Reagan’s policy goal of defeating the Soviet Union. Several testified against Gates’s nomination to be CIA director in 1991 by lodging false claims that he and Casey had politicized intelligence. Former senator Warren Rudman, a moderate Republican who headed President Clinton’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, described these attacks by CIA analysts as “an attempted assassination, an assassination of [Gates’s] character . . . McCarthyism, pure and simple.”

The liberal tilt within the CIA, especially in the Directorate of Intelligence (the analysis office), grew worse during the Clinton years as personnel were hired and promoted to support Clinton-Gore policy objectives. These included wasteful initiatives such as the DCI Environmental Center, launched at the same time the CIA was dangerously downplaying counterterrorism analysis.

Unfortunately, the intensified liberal tilt at the CIA during the Clinton years was not reversed by the George W. Bush administration. Bush kept on Clinton’s CIA director, George Tenet, who had no interest in cleaning house or taking steps to ensure that CIA analysis would be balanced and not politicized. When his successor, Porter Goss, tried to clean up the agency, CIA careerists fought back aggressively by leaking to Congress and the media, eventually forcing Goss out.

As a result, intelligence careerists often paid no price for engaging in blatantly political activities to undermine the Bush administration. One officer in the CIA inspector general’s office was fired after she admitted she’d leaked classified information on Bush counterterrorism programs to aWashington Post reporter. In 2005, several intelligence officers attempted to sabotage John Bolton’s nomination to be U.N. ambassador — an act of political skullduggery for which they were never punished.

The most notorious example of partisan political activity by U.S. intelligence officers occurred just before the 2004 presidential election when Paul Pillar, the CIA’s national intelligence officer for Near East and South Asia, while giving a speech at a dinner on September 21, criticized President Bush and CIA director Tenet for ignoring critical intelligence that he claimed might have prevented the Iraq War. Incredibly, CIA management had cleared Pillar’s comments, saying that the substance of his remarks, but not the speaker or the audience, could be disclosed. The late columnist Robert Novak, who attended the dinner, sparked an uproar when he reported Pillar’s identity and the dinner anyway. Clearly, Pillar’s presentation was intended to affect the outcome of the 2004 presidential election.

The Wall Street Journal condemned such political activities by CIA officers in a scathing September 29, 2004, editorial titled “The CIA’s Insurgency”:

It’s become obvious over the past couple of years that large swaths of the CIA oppose U.S. anti-terror policy, especially toward Iraq. But rather than keep this dispute in-house, the dissenters have taken their objections to the public, albeit usually through calculated leaks that are always spun to make the agency look good and the Bush administration look bad. . . . Yet what the CIA insurgents are essentially doing here, with their leaks and insubordination, is engaging in a policy debate. Given the timing of the latest leaks so close to an election, they are now clearly trying to defeat President Bush and elect John Kerry.

Politicization of America’s intelligence agencies by the Left has grown worse during the Obama years. Recall that the CIA drafted the politicized (and later discredited) 2012 talking points on the Benghazi terrorist attacks. Additionally, the agency now uses racial, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religion, socioeconomic status, and other quotas for CIA hiring and promotions.

Significant examples of politicization in other intelligence agencies since 2009 include the congressional testimony of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. During a briefing to the House Intelligence Committee in February 201, Clapper tried to downplay the Muslim Brotherhood as a radical Islamist group, saying: “The term Muslim Brotherhood is an umbrella term for a variety of movements. In the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried al-Qaeda as a perversion of Islam.”

And in 2015, as widely reported, more than 50 U.S. Central Command intelligence analysts lodged a formal complaint with the Pentagon’s inspector general. In the complaint, they alleged that their intelligence assessments were being intentionally manipulated by senior officials to downplay the threat from ISIS and the al-Nusra Front (the al-Qaeda branch in Syria) in order to support the Obama administration’s claim that the U.S. was making progress in defeating these Islamist terrorist groups. A recent congressional task force concluded this month that these complaints were valid and expressed alarm that nothing has been done to improve CENTCOM intelligence analysis in response to them.

In light of this history, it is no surprise that Democrats, intelligence officers, and the liberal media urged that Trump be denied an intelligence briefing as the GOP presidential candidate. Naturally, they did not raise similar concerns about briefing Hillary Clinton, although the FBI director determined she was “extremely careless” in handling classified information as secretary of state, even sharing classified intelligence with people who had no security clearance. Comey also stated that due to this carelessness, it’s possible hostile actors have gained access to the highly classified information that traveled through the multiple private servers Clinton used.

It’s true that intelligence briefings to presidential candidates are offered at the discretion of a sitting president. But calls to deny these briefings to Trump or to give him fake briefings are an affront to the American tradition of peaceful transfer of power and could undermine his presidential transition if he wins the election.

It is not up to Senator Reid or U.S. intelligence officers to prevent a duly elected major-party presidential candidate from receiving intelligence briefings because they don’t like him or because he is from the wrong political party. Of more concern is whether some intelligence personnel, out of political bias, would refuse to provide a President Trump with the intelligence support he would need to protect American national security.

Trump may have been too hard on U.S. intelligence agencies when he said that they got it wrong before the Iraq War; and perhaps he was unfair to lambaste Obama’s dismissal of ISIS as the “jayvee” team. Intelligence agencies must be held accountable for their work, but their analysis will never be 100 percent accurate. In addition, intelligence agencies only advisepolicymakers. They cannot force a president to use their analysis.

I was pleased to hear that Trump realizes he will have a lot of work ahead of him to fix the U.S. intelligence community if he becomes president. To get the objective, accurate, and hard-hitting intelligence support he will need if elected, Trump must name strong, decisive leaders — including good managers from the business community — to top intelligence posts. He must hire people who understand that America’s intelligence agencies do not work for themselves, for either party in Congress, or the foreign-policy establishment; they work for the president. Any U.S. intelligence officer who is not prepared to loyally provide whomever wins the presidency with his best efforts should find another job.

Bill Warner, PhD: Totalitarian Islam

August 18, 2016

Bill Warner, PhD: Totalitarian Islam, Political Islam via YouTube, August 16, 2016

Islamist Preacher Convicted in Britain

August 18, 2016

Islamist Preacher Convicted in Britain, Power LinePAUL MIRENGOFF, August 18, 2016

Anjem Choudary, the British hate-spewing Islamic preacher, has been found guilty of supporting Islamic State. He faces up to ten years of prison time.

Choudary will be familiar to some of our readers. He used to appear on Fox News talk shows to defend the actions of terrorists. Often with a smile. Or was it a smirk?

Choudary was convicted at the Old Bailey. Jurors heard testimony that he swore an oath of allegiance to ISIS and that he told his supporters to obey ISIS head Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and travel to Syria to support “the caliphate.” ISIS has proudly beheaded British citizens, among its many other atrocities.

In a lecture he gave in 2013, Choudary said:

We don’t have any borders, my dear Muslims. It is about time we resumed conquering for the sake of Allah.

Next time when your child is at school and the teacher says ‘what do you want when you grow up, what is your ambition?’, they should say to dominate the whole world by Islam, including Britain, that is my ambition.

Choudary promoted this ambition mainly by radicalizing a string of terrorists, some of whom have stood trial in UK. Among them are Michael Adebolajo, convicted of the violent murder of British soldier Lee Rigby, and Siddhartha Dhar, suspected of replacing Jihadi John as ISIS executioner.

Choudary was thus convicted of “inviting support for a proscribed organization.”

At trial, Choudary admitted that he was media spokesman for a group called Islam4UK during a time when it called for Buckingham Palace to be turned into a mosque and Nelson’s Column to be destroyed. However, he denied inviting support for ISIS.

Apparently, the jury could not reconcile that claim with the testimony it heard, including that discussed above.

Choudary claimed to be a “lecturer in sharia law” giving “the Islamic perspective.” According to at least one report, his defense lawyer likened him to the poet William Wordsworth who praised the aims of the French revolution but not its means. But Wordsworth never swore allegiance to Robespierre.

Britain’s less radical Muslim community applauded Choudary’s conviction. Miqdaad Versi, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said:

Mr Anjem Choudary has long been condemned by Muslim organisations and Muslims across the country, who consider him and his support for Daesh [ISIS] to be despicable and contrary to the values of Islam and our nation.

Many Muslims have long been puzzled why this man was regularly approached by the media to give outrageous statements that inflamed Islamophobia. We hope the judgment serves as a lesson for anyone who follows this path of advocating hate and division.

To be fair, Choudary provided a window into what’s going on in a segment of the British Muslim community. More importantly, he was good for the BBC’s ratings.

Choudary was also good for ISIS. Now, neither television nor ISIS (I hope) will have the benefit of his services.

Report: Illegal Migrants from Terror-Linked Countries Surging at Southern Border

August 18, 2016

Report: Illegal Migrants from Terror-Linked Countries Surging at Southern Border, BreitbartEdwin Mora, August 18, 2016

mid east refs

U.S. officials are trying to establish closer cooperation with various Latin American nations to combat an increase in the number of illegal migrants from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East attempting to sneak into the United States.

Between October 2015 and May 2016, the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency, a component of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), detained 5,350 African and Asian migrants along the U.S.-Mexico border, according to Reuters.

The apprehensions of illegals from Africa and Asia during that period marks an increase from those that took place in all of 2015 (4,261) and 2014 (1,831).

In its report, Reuters highlighted attempted entries into the U.S. by individuals from Pakistan, Syria, and Afghanistan, which the U.S. considers to be terrorism-linked countries.

Most countries considered by the U.S. government to be linked to terrorism are located in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. American border authorities are trying to stop the illegal migrants at the Mexico border with Guatemala, before they reach the United States.

Reuters reports:

U.S. agents deployed to an immigration facility on Mexico’s southern border have vetted the more than 640 migrants from countries outside the Americas who have been detained at the center since October 2015, according to U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) documents reviewed by Reuters…

The U.S. agents’ findings come as Mexican immigration data show 6,342 Asian, African and Middle Eastern migrants were apprehended trying to enter Mexico in the first six months of this year. That was up from 4,261 in all of 2015, and 1,831 in 2014.

U.S. border apprehensions point to the same trend. Between October 2015 and May 2016, U.S. agents apprehended 5,350 African and Asian migrants at the U.S. Southwest border. That’s up from 6,126 in all of fiscal year 2015 and 4,172 in all of fiscal year 2014.

“The reality is that the vast majority of the people that Mexico encounters that are extra-continental will eventually end up on our border,” an unnamed official from CBP, told Reuters.

The Reuters report came soon after Central American authorities dismantled a human trafficking network dedicated to smuggling illegal migrants into the United States from terror-linked countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

Moreover, the top American military official in Latin America and the Caribbean, U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) chief Navy Adm. Kurt W. Tidd, recently warned that there are various networks in his area of responsibility that specialize in trafficking illegals into the United States from countries affiliated with terrorism.

He noted that both the Shiite Lebanese terror group Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy, and the Sunni Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) are known to operate in the region.

Reuters points out:

Washington is seeking closer coordination with several Latin American countries to tackle a jump in migrants from Asia, Africa and the Middle East who it believes are trying to reach the United States from the south on an arduous route by plane, boat and through jungle on foot…

The migrants often fly to Brazil, obtain fake passports there, and are smuggled to Panama before heading through Central America to Mexico’s porous southern border, according to transcripts of 14 interviews conducted at the center and other internal briefing documents seen by Reuters…

U.S. concerns about potential security risks from migrants using the unusual and circuitous southern route have been growing in recent years, following a string of Islamic State-inspired attacks in the West and the surge in Syrian refugees fleeing that country’s civil war.

Breitbart Texas previously released leaked documents from the CBP detailing the more than 75 countries, to include those compromised by terrorist organizations, which were taking advantage of the southern border of the United States as of 2014.

Obama’s Latest GITMO Dump

August 18, 2016

Obama’s Latest GITMO Dump, Front Page MagazineAri Lieberman, August 18, 2016

GITMO(1)

In his mad rush to shut down the Guantanamo detention facility, housing America’s most notorious Islamist criminals, President Obama has engaged in yet another Gitmo dump. In the latest outrage, Obama released fifteen detainees – 3 Afghans and 12 Yemini nationals – and transferred them to the UAE where they will enjoy their new found freedom and in all likelihood, return to their violent jihadi pasts.

Obama has made the closure of Guantanamo the cornerstone of his failed policies of appeasement and has done all that is within his power to shut the facility. Congressional legislation prevents him from closing the facility outright and he doesn’t have the votes to overturn that legislation so he’s doing the next best thing and is freeing the detainees, emptying the facility of its violent, hardcore inhabitants.

Throughout his tenure, Obama has released or transferred over 150 detainees from Guantanamo. Some of those transfers were conducted in a blatantly illegal fashion such as when 5 terrorists – the so-called Taliban 5 – were released in exchange for U.S. army deserter, Bowe Bergdahl. In that exchange, Obama demonstrated his utter contempt for Congress and the constitutional process by violating legislation requiring him to provide Congress with 30 days’ notice before releasing detainees.

Those supportive of Obama’s deleterious policies have claimed that the recidivist rate is low. The figure of 5 percent is usually thrown out by the president’s shills but that figure is an outright fabrication and number is alarmingly higher. In fact, in March 2015, reports surfaced that at least three members of the Taliban 5 were attempting to communicate or otherwise reconnect with known terrorist networks. Anyone with a scintilla of foresight knows and understands that radical Muslim terrorists, steeped in hatred of the West will revert to their old ways if given the opportunity. Moreover, many of Guantanamo’s detainees are not only imbibed with hatred, they possess skills of the terror trade that make them manifestly more dangerous.

Obama has offered a number of reasons for closure of the Guantanamo facility but they all fall flat. He has argued that Guantanamo serves as a propaganda tool for terrorists but that tired line is pure drivel. The 1983 marine barracks and U.S. embassy bombings, the 1993 WTC bombing, the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, the 2,000 USS Cole bombing and the 9-11 attacks, among many other outrages, all preceded Guantanamo. Muslim terrorists don’t need an excuse to hate and attack America. America is an anathema to everything they stand for and Guantanamo is just a side show.

He has also argued that the facility is expensive to run and drains resources. This is an almost comical excuse considering the source. The tax and spend Socialist in Chief has never met a wasteful project he didn’t like. Billions have been spent on Obamacare, an extravagant, failed socialist experiment that has visited disaster on the American economy. Nearly $1 billion was spent propping up the failing Solyndra solar power company and team Obama spent $500 million training four or fiveSyrian rebels.

He claims that continued maintenance of Guantanamo harms partnerships with U.S. allies and that the issue of Guantanamo continuously arises in talks with world leaders who express disquiet over its existence. Obama is of course careful to avoid specifying which leaders have expressed disapproval. Perhaps it was his good buddy Erdogan, Turkey’s unhinged Islamist thug whose abysmal human rights record makes Vladimir Putin look like Mother Theresa by comparison. The U.S. government should pay no heed to sanctimonious lecturing from third-world despots.

Lastly, Obama has argued that the existence of Guantanamo “runs contrary to our moral values,” and “is viewed as a stain on our broader record of upholding the highest standards of the rule of law (emphasis added).” Viewed by whom? He does not say. Nor does he explain how the existence of the facility “runs contrary to our moral values.” The detainees at Guantanamo are fed and clothed and accommodations are made for their “religious” requirements.

Let us not forget for one second the nature of the people we are dealing with. They are zealots who have committed bestial acts in the name of their religion and have declared Jihad on Western civilization and there is virtually no hope for their rehabilitation. Consequently, they need to be kept separate and apart from civilization. Moreover, Guantanamo has proven to be an effective tool for intelligence gathering and vital information obtained from detainees has saved lives.

This however, does not matter to Obama who seems fixated on closing the facility. He suffers from an acute case of myopic tunnel vision and is incapable of entertaining any argument that runs counter to the narrative he wishes to present. He has already fired one secretary of defense for failing to act fast enough on his transfer demands and demonstrated a disturbing willingness to trample on the U.S. Constitution to further his goals. For Obama, in his twilight months in office, Guantanamo’s closure is a race against time.

Dr. Drew ‘Gravely Concerned’ About Clinton’s Health, Archaic Treatments

August 18, 2016

Dr. Drew ‘Gravely Concerned’ About Clinton’s Health, Archaic Treatments, Washington Free Beacon, August 18, 2016

TV personality Dr. Drew Pinsky said he was “gravely concerned” about Hillary Clinton’s health in an interview posted Wednesday, pointing to what he called an “exceedingly rare clot” she had sustained from her 2012 concussion and what he criticized as archaic treatments for her medical problems.

Clinton’s health has been the subject of speculation for weeks by Donald Trump supporters and others in conservative media.

Here is a transcript of the full exchange with Dr. Drew.

DR. DREW PINSKY: But the fact is she released her medical records some time ago, and if you listened to my show last week, I just called a friend of mine, Dr. Robert [name unclear], who’s an excellent internist-pulmonologist, and we just dispassionately sat and evaluated the medical record that she had released. And based on the information that she has provided and her doctors have provided, we were gravely concerned not just about her health, but her health care.

INTERVIEWER: Why?

PINSKY: It’s hard for people to understand. Both of us concluded that if we were providing the care that she was receiving, we’d be ashamed to show up in a doctor’s lounge. We’d be laughed out. She’s receiving sort-of 1950-level care by our evaluation. So we took a look at her record, and here are the basic facts. She had two episodes of what’s called Deep-Venous Thrombosis. Common problem. Blood clots in the leg. She also has hypothyroidism, and she’d been treated for hypothyroidism with something called Armour Thyroid, which is very unconventional and something that we used to use back in the ’60s. And both he and I went, “Hmmm, that’s weird.” And by the way, wow, Armour Thyroid sometimes has some weird side effects.

Oh well. OK. So she goes on Coumadin. That’s weird, because Coumadin really isn’t even used anymore. Now we use Eliquis or Xarelto, things like this. Certainly the presidential candidate would get one of the newer anti-coagulates. Then she falls, hits her head, and as a complication of that has something called a Transverse Sinus Thrombosis. This is an exceedingly rare clot. I’ve only seen one of these in my career, which is a clot in the collecting system for the cerebral spinal fluid, and it essentially guarantees that somebody has something wrong with their coagulation system. Well, she’s had two clots, a Transverse Sinus Thrombosis.

What’s wrong with her coagulation system? Has that been evaluated? And oh, by the way, Armour Thyroid associated rarely with hyper-coagulability. So the very medicine the doctors are using may be causing this problem, and they’re using an old-fashioned medicine to treat it. What is going on with her health care? It’s bizarre. I got to tell you. Maybe they have reasons, but at a distance, it looks bizarre. There ought to be some sort of standard for people that are going to lead the country or are going to making these important decisions. Again, Hillary may be fine with all of this. I mean, it’s dangerous and it’s concerning, but you can see—and by the way, there were two other things that gravely concerned us. When she hit her head, she had to wear these prism glasses when she came out.

INTERVIEWER: Right, right.

PINSKY: That is brain damage, and it’s affecting her balance. Now clearly, it hasn’t affected her cognition, but tell us a little more about that. That’s profound. And then number two, when they screened her for heart disease, again, they did an old-fashioned screen. It just seems like she’s getting care from somebody that she met in Arkansas when she was a kid, and you’ve got to wonder. You’ve got to wonder. It’s not so much that her health is a grave concern. It’s that the care she’s getting could make it a concern.

 

Gorka: The war is real and the war is here

August 18, 2016

Gorka: The war is real and the war is here, Fox News via YouTube, August 17, 2016

“No Room for the Zionist Entity in the Region”

August 18, 2016

“No Room for the Zionist Entity in the Region”, Gatestone InstituteKhaled Abu Toameh, August 18, 2016

♦ “The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Wakf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it. There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except Jihad.” — Hamas Charter.

♦ Hamas’s decision to participate in the upcoming local and municipal elections will further strengthen the movement and pave the way for it to extend its control from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank.

♦ “The Zionist entity will not be part of this region. We will continue to resist it until the liberation of our land and the return of our people.” — Musa Abu Marzouk, senior Hamas official.

♦ How precisely Hamas intends to “serve” the Palestinians by running in the elections is somewhat murky. Abu Marzouk did not talk about building new schools and parks for the Palestinians. When he talks about “serving” the people, he means only one thing: recruiting Palestinians to Hamas and jihad against Israel and the Jews.

The dreamers in English still have it: “Hamas and Israel, Israel and Hamas. Maybe one day…who knows.” And then the Arabic-language truth rolls in: “Death to Israel, always!”

Some Arab and Western political analysts have mistakenly interpreted Hamas’s agreement to participate in the Palestinian local and municipal elections, scheduled for October 8, as a sign of the movement’s “pragmatism” and march toward recognizing Israel’s right to exist.

They falsely assume that Hamas’s readiness to take part in the democratic process shows that the leaders of the extremist movement are also prepared to abandon their dream of destroying Israel and abandoning the “armed struggle” against it.

These arguments about Hamas’s purported “pragmatism” and “moderation” were also made back in 2006, when Hamas contested the Palestinian parliamentary election. Then too, many political analysts claimed that Hamas’s decision to run in the election was an encouraging sign that the movement has endorsed a new, moderate approach toward Israel and the peace process.

Reality, however, has proven these assumptions utterly false. Hamas’s victory in the 2006 parliamentary election did not bring about any changes in its extremist ideology. Hamas did not change its charter, which calls for the destruction of Israel. Nor did Hamas abandon its murderous terrorist attacks against Israelis.

To recall, here is what the Hamas charter openly states about this issue:

“The Islamic Resistance Movement [Hamas] believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Wakf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it. There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except Jihad. The liberation of that land is an individual duty binding on all Muslims everywhere. In order to face the usurpation of Palestine by the Jews, we have no escape from rising the banner of Jihad. This would require the propagation of Islamic consciousness among the masses on all local, Arab and Islamic levels. We must spread the spirit of Jihad among the Islamic Umma [nation], clash with the enemies and join the ranks of the Jihad fighters.”

The 2006 Hamas victory, in fact, further emboldened Hamas and increased its determination to stick to its ideology and terrorism, in addition to the indoctrination and incitement against Israel. The following year, in 2007, Hamas even waged a coup against the Palestinian Authority (PA) and seized full control over the Gaza Strip.

Likewise, Hamas’s decision to participate in the upcoming local and municipal elections will further strengthen the movement and pave the way for it to extend its control from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank.

So, an electoral win or loss for Hamas is totally irrelevant. Hamas is not going to change its ideology or soften its position toward Israel and the “peace process.” And, of course, Hamas is not going to recognize Israel’s right to exist. Its leaders continue to assure their people of that — in public and on a daily basis.

As in the parliamentary election, Hamas may even emerge stronger and more resolved, especially if it wins the upcoming local and municipal elections, as it seems destined to do.

Hamas sees its participation in elections as a golden opportunity for “the reinforcement of its positions and for the encouragement of its Jihad,” as it clearly and unequivocally states in its charter.

In other words, Hamas sees elections as a chance to pursue its fight to eliminate Israel. So Hamas is not running in the upcoming elections in order to provide the Palestinians with improved municipal services, but, as it states in its charter, “in order to make possible the next round with the Jews, the merchants of war” and “until liberation is completed, the invaders are vanquished and Allah’s victory sets in.”

656 (1)Masked Hamas members (dressed in black) prepare to execute local Palestinians who they claim spied for Israel, Aug. 22, 2014, in Gaza. (Image source: Reuters video screenshot)

Yet, incredibly, some Western political analysts and Palestinian affairs “experts” dismiss the Hamas charter as irrelevant. This dismissal is now based on statements attributed sporadically to some Hamas leaders and spokesmen in various media outlets. These comments are, for them, “encouraging” and “positive” signs from Hamas. They even take the foolhardy step of advising world leaders to listen to these voices and take them into account when dealing with Hamas.

Let us examine, for a moment, one of those statements.

Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal was recently reported to have voiced his movement’s readiness to recognize Israel’s right to exit [exist? — DM] if it withdrew to the pre-1967 lines, namely the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip (Israel already pulled out of the Gaza Strip in 2005).

Mashaal is reported to have told representatives of Asian media organizations during a briefing in Doha, Qatar, that he was prepared to accept Israel’s right to exist and the “two-state solution.”

Within hours, the Hamas leadership denied that Mashaal had made such remarks concerning Israel’s right to exist. Hamas called the reports “lies” and “fabrications” and reiterated its refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist. “These suspicious and fabricated statements are aimed at distorting the image and positions of Hamas and its leadership,” read a statement issued by the Islamist movement in the Gaza Strip.

Slander and defamation: that is how Hamas views the talk about its leaders’ purported readiness to recognize Israel. This, to them, is the worst thing that could happen to Hamas — to accept the presence of Israel in the Middle East. The Hamas denial is aimed at protecting its reputation and image in the eyes of its supporters, lest they believe, God forbid, that the Islamist movement has abandoned its desire to eliminate Israel.

To set the record straight, another senior Hamas official, Musa Abu Marzouk, declared this week: “The Zionist entity will not be part of this region. We will continue to resist it until the liberation of our land and the return of our people.” With tongue in cheek, Abu Marzouk, who is being groomed as a potential successor to Mashaal, stated that Hamas’s goal behind its decision to participate in the October 8 local and municipal elections was to “serve our people.” Addressing his rivals in President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah faction, the top Hamas official added: “Our differences will not reach the level of enmity. Our only enemy is Israel. Our political rivalry should not exceed its limit.”

How precisely Hamas intends to “serve” the Palestinians by running in the elections is somewhat murky. Abu Marzouk did not talk about building new schools and parks for the Palestinians. When he talks about “serving” the people, he means only one thing: recruiting Palestinians to Hamas and jihad against Israel and the Jews.

In recent weeks, Hamas supporters have been launching various campaigns highlighting the Islamist movement’s “achievements” in the Gaza Strip in a bid to win the hearts and minds of voters. One campaign, entitled, “A More Beautiful Gaza,” features scenes of clean streets and public parks in some parts of the Gaza Strip. Yet the rosy picture that Hamas is painting is silent as to the extraordinarily high rate of unemployment and poverty in the Gaza Strip, or the fact that thousands of Palestinian families have lost their homes in wars with Israel that were the direct result of bombarding Israel with rockets and missiles. Nor does the campaign talk about Hamas’s repressive measures against women and journalists.

This campaign of disinformation is aimed at persuading Palestinian voters that the two million residents of the Gaza Strip are living in a utopia under Hamas, and that this experience now needs to be copied in the West Bank.

There is no doubt that many Palestinians will fall into this trap and cast their ballots for Hamas. They will do so because they will be convinced that Hamas will solve all their economic and social problems and bring them peace and stability at home. But many Palestinians will also vote for Hamas for other reasons. The first of these is that they identify with Hamas’s ideology, as expressed in its charter, and believe that jihad is the only way to “liberate Palestine.” Second, Hamas has managed to convince a large number of Palestinians that a vote for another party or candidate other than Hamas would be a vote against Islam and Allah.

History seems to be repeating itself and the lessons from the Hamas victory in the 2006 parliamentary election have not been learned. Hamas is fooling not only many Palestinians by promising them a better life and prosperity under its rule; it is also fooling some Westerners, who talk about “signs of moderation and pragmatism” coming from the Islamist movement.

Since its establishment in 1987, Hamas has been single-minded about its charter-documented desire to wage jihad against Israel. Its leaders continue to state this in Arabic on a daily basis. It is not rocket science: the movement has not changed and will not do so in the future, regardless of whether it wins or loses any election.

Hamas has made itself perfectly clear. What is not so clear is why some Westerners continue to talk about its “policy shifts.” Also difficult to understand is why some in the West are not asking President Abbas and his Palestinian Authority what they intend to do if and when Hamas wins the local and municipal elections. Finally, why Abbas is pushing ahead with preparations for the elections, when he knows that his Fatah faction could easily lose to Hamas, is a true mystery.

Rushed evacuation of US nukes from Incirlik

August 18, 2016

Rushed evacuation of US nukes from Incirlik, DEBKAfile, August 18, 2016

US_PLANES_INCIRLICK_8.16

The talks ground to a halt over Turkish insistence on assuming control of the nuclear arsenal and America’s rejection of this demand.

***********************

In an earthshaking Middle East development, the United States has begun secretly evacuating the tactical nuclear weapons it had stockpiled at the southern Turkish air base of Incirlik and is transporting them to US bases in Romania.

The Obama administration has thus taken another step towards folding its tents in the Middle East.

In contrast, Moscow is rapidly expanding its air force footprint in the region with a new base in Iran following its facility in Syria. Advanced bombers and fighters are stepping up operations in both countries, while Russian warships carrying Kalibr cruise missiles gather in the Mediterranean and Caspian Seas.

DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources report that Washington decided to remove the nuclear arsenal to safety after talks between American and Turkish talks on release 1,500 US airmen serving at the base from the siege clamped down a month ago broke down. The airmen were running the US air campaign against ISIS in in Syria just 112km away.

The talks ground to a halt over Turkish insistence on assuming control of the nuclear arsenal and America’s rejection of this demand.

The 50-70 B61 tactical gravity nuclear bombs were stored in underground bunkers close to the US bombers’ air strips. Although this was not fully admitted by Washington, the US air and ground crews were held intermittently in lockdown since the President Tayyip Erdogan suppressed a military coup against him a month ago.

The deteriorations of relations between Ankara and Washington contrasted strongly with the Turkish-

Russian rapprochement, which Erdogan and Russian President Vladimir Putin sealed in St. Petersburg on Aug.8. Since then, there have been calls for the Russian Air Force to be allowed to displace the US warplanes at Incirlik. This process has now begun.