Archive for August 2016

Sliming Trump

August 5, 2016

Sliming Trump, Front Page Magazine, Matthew Vadum, August 5, 2016

(Please see also, Mainstream Media: ‘Trump Boots Baby From Rally!’ Non-Media Witnesses: ‘That’s Pure Propaganda’ — DM)

sd_2

Now that Donald Trump is safely ensconced as the official Republican nominee for president, the mainstream media is running an intense around-the-clock operation to deprive him of the relatively unfiltered media exposure he needs to seal the deal with the American people.

Trump being silly and playful in front of TV cameras or utilizing his sense of humor is cast as evidence of a disordered, antisocial mind. The media is focusing on minor benign details and marketing them as the evil deeds of an evil man.

Preventing Trump from communicating effectively with Americans didn’t work so well during the primaries. That was when student radicals, union thugs, Democrat allies in Black Lives Matter, and the remnants of Occupy Wall Street were disrupting Trump rallies and intimidating would-be rally attendees by beating the New Yorker’s supporters up in broad daylight.

This was always less an effort to counter Trump or challenge his policy platform, than a fascistic push to simply suppress his message. With Trump, the master communicator whose outreach skills arguably mirror President Obama’s, the message is everything.

Squelch his voice and he’s finished.

The leftist narrative being deployed against Trump is based on lies, half-truths, and nothing-burgers. They don’t even have to make sense. All they have to accomplish is to hold Trump, the blunt, brash billionaire elitists love to hate because he’s from lowly Queens, the home of the fictional Archie Bunker, up to ridicule. Trump may own country clubs and golf courses but he doesn’t have the manners or the breeding the upper crust expects from those with money. New money is bad money unless you’re a left-winger who gives it to inane social justice-oriented causes, goofy charities, nonprofits pushing radical social engineering on people, and Democrat candidates for office.

So Americans are subjected to a buffet of stupid “news” stories that happen to help journalists make their case against Trump. Meeting the Donald head-on wouldn’t work so instead it’s death by a thousand cuts.

The fact that a veteran admired Trump so much he gave a copy of his Purple Heart medal to the candidate who made a lighthearted joke about always wanting to receive the medal (an obvious absurdity since you have to be injured during military service to get it) was twisted to make the case Trump was a draft dodger who hates military families that have lost loved ones in wars.

The media has been gleefully resurrecting the “chickenhawk” fallacy that was the rage during George W. Bush’s presidency. It held that because Cindy Sheehan lost her son in Bush’s war she was uniquely qualified to pass judgment on matters of war and peace and in general to make a spectacle of herself.

Of course, once the fake dove Barack Obama was sworn in as president, Sheehan’s antiwar yammering was no longer useful to the Left so blessed sister Cindy disappeared from media coverage. When the Left’s favorite president of all time is in power, and he’s a thuggish warmonger who can’t even be bothered to consult Congress before launching an illegal, ill-advised war against Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi, having antiwar leftists dog the president at every turn is no longer a positive thing.

Besides, Trump sacrificed nothing, according to the wrathful Khizr Khan, so he needs to shut up. Trump’s run-in with the sleazy immigration lawyer is still receiving media attention. The lie that Trump attacked Khan’s hero son who died in Iraq getting his men to move away from danger won’t die. It’s taken on a life of its own and hardened into fact in the minds of many.

This “chickenhawk” fallacy gives rise to another fallacy that rears its ugly head whenever there is an opportunity to make Republicans look heartless. That is the idea that the words and actions of Gold Star families can never be questioned. Even though Khan, whose sketchy background has been emerging, used a prime speaking spot at the Democrat convention in Philadelphia last week to promote even higher levels of immigration that would financially benefit him as an immigration lawyer, he is supposed to be untouchable because the media wants it that way.

At the same time the media ignores the fact that Hillary Clinton let four men die in Benghazi, Libya, when U.S. facilities came under terrorist attack, and then lied to the surviving family members’ faces, blaming an anti-Islam YouTube video nobody saw. The media also avoids providing a body count for the Arab Spring that Clinton inflicted on North Africa and the Middle East.

“It’s funny to be lectured about respect for vets and the military by a party that’s spent years calling our soldiers rapists and baby killers,” tweeted Legal Insurrection contributor “Aleister.”

Contrast what happened to Trump with what happened when someone gave former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.) a Purple Heart that she hadn’t earned. The gift came after she nearly died at the hands of a crazed shooter and it was treated as a heartwarming gesture from an appreciative citizen toward a public servant who had suffered so much for her country.

Trump gets creamed by the media no matter what he does.

After playfully tolerating an infant’s crying from the podium at a rally, Trump eventually asked the mother to remove the baby from an event. That’s what decent people do. It’s called politeness. It’s a non-issue if you’re a normal person with a healthy respect for social norms but rabid feminists seized on it as example of the Republican’s supposed contempt for babies and mothers.

At CNN’s website MoveOn mom Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner berates Trump, claiming he was mocking the mother. Trump doesn’t realize “that when he throws a baby out, the metaphorical bathwater can’t be ignored.” This garden-variety humorless left-wing feminist used the opportunity to blather on about equal pay, how women outnumber men in this country, and the need for crazy-expensive big government programs like paid family parental leave.

To the Left what Trump did is a grievous offense against civility and social norms, yet Clinton’s communistic blueprint It Takes A Village, calls for the state “to teach, train and raise children,” adding that “[p]arents have a secondary role.” Put Hillary in the White House and she’ll solve the problem of crying babies by terminating parental rights. After all, that’s what she says in her book.

And don’t forget that the Left deems this crying baby incident to be far worse than Clinton’s strident, unconditional, unapologetic support for the taxpayer-funded human body parts trafficking concern known as Planned Parenthood.

During the Democratic National Convention last week CNN and the New York Times pushed out the lie that at a presser Trump had invited Russia to somehow hack Hillary Clinton’s emails which are far as anyone can tell no longer exist. The party of sedition and treason went nuts calling Trump a traitor. In reality all Trump did was offer a quip to reporters, urging Russia or any other governments that may have Clinton’s mountain of missing emails in their possession to return them to the United States. Nor was Trump’s statement tantamount to asking Russia to interfere in U.S. elections.

The media left out the fact that Clinton is much closer to Russia than Trump is and that that nation’s government has compromised her. She even cut bad deals with that country to hand over a big chunk of American uranium to the Kremlin.

Journalists are engaging in all this mischief because they are acutely aware that if Trump can somehow penetrate the massive propaganda force-field the mainstream media has erected around his campaign, the party is over. The thinking among the media and the Left – but I repeat myself – is that if they can keep strategically placing nasty little booby-traps in the undisciplined candidate’s path they can keep him off-message and floundering long enough to get would-be federal inmate Hillary Clinton across the finish line Nov. 8.

If he can reach voters with his tremendously popular message of law and order, immigration enforcement and border security, and mostly pro-growth economic policies, he wins – convincingly – in a year of political populism and anti-establishment anger.

If Trump focuses on one issue, specifically, how truly rotten and anemic the Obama-Clinton economy is, he probably wins.

Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger said Clinton, whose class warfare-dominated platform calls for far-reaching, even punitive, tax hikes all over the place ought to doom her candidacy. “Trump should be killing her on that point,” he said on the most recent installment of the “John Batchelor Show.”

Despite polling showing Clinton ahead of Trump, seasoned political handicappers know that Hillary’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep. Even gung-ho leftists Michael Moore and Cenk Uygur think Clinton, the ultimate political insider, is such a lousy candidate that she’s destined to take a dive on Nov. 8.

Reporters are doing these terrible things because they are terrified that there will be no third Obama term and that Americans will have to wait a few more years for a president who has a uterus. And worst of all in their view, is the possibility that America just might have a future with Trump in the Oval Office. That is unacceptable to these ink-stained wretches and blow-dried talking heads who insist on influencing the news instead of merely reporting it.

The media is also trying to depict the Trump campaign as in a state of growing disarray, even though Democrats are experiencing unprecedented political meltdowns.

Top staffers were liquidated in a Bolshevik-style purge at the Democratic National Committee after leaked emails showed top Democrats engaged in unethical behavior, including waging war against second-place primary finisher Bernie Sanders.

DNC chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz got the axe and was replaced on an interim basis by Gore-Lieberman 2000 campaign manager Donna Brazile. Brazile, in turn, gave the bum’s rush to DNC CEO Amy Dacey, communications director Luis Miranda, and chief financial officer Brad Marshall.

Although recent polls show Clinton’s lead over Trump growing in the wake of the businessman’s messaging problems, the admittedly subjective anecdotal evidence on the ground suggests Trump is doing fine. His fundraising has dramatically picked up.

Trump continues receiving rock star treatment at rallies around the country such as those held this week in Portland, Me., and Daytona Beach and Jacksonville, Fla. Trump speaks to overflow crowds while Clinton has great difficulty filling more modestly sized venues. There is no passion for Hillary. There are plenty of people who feel they have to vote for her because having a president with a uterus would be a world-historic moment.

But reporters still aren’t asking the Clinton campaign about the candidate’s fall in December 2012 in which she sufferedbrain damage. Her coughing fits at the podium, strange facial expressions at the Democrat convention as celebratory balloons were falling, and jerky body movements also don’t inspire confidence in her ability to physically endure the rigors of the presidency. Nor does the fact that she hasn’t held a press conference in 244 days. She is everywhere on TV and yet she says next to nothing of substance. She is hiding in plain sight and the media is protecting her from having to answer inconvenient questions.

It also should be noted that the Trump candidacy is also bringing out the worst in conservatives who refuse to get behind the GOP nominee.

At Mediaite, conservative talk show host John Ziegler is already pushing for Sean Hannity to be “punished severely” by having his Fox News Channel show canceled because he got on the Trump train early and proved influential among primary voters.

In a sophomoric, oddly written rant, Ziegler accuses Hannity of recently launching a campaign to cover his posterior for boosting Trump, whom he declares was obviously unelectable from the start. He calls Hannity “not at all a bright guy” and “the guy who married the obviously wrong girl, and now wants to try to blame his buddies, who tried to tell him she clearly wasn’t the right one.”

Ziegler is far from the worst offender among right-leaning commentators as anyone who has been following the recent adventures of Mitt Romney, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Sens. Jeff Flake and Lindsey Graham, George Will, and Bill Kristol can attest.

Meanwhile, the leader of a Republican anti-Trump group is moving her efforts against the candidate to a new level. Liz Mair, the founder of Make America Awesome, an anti-Trump super PAC, is now communications director for something new called Republicans for Johnson-Weld, the Libertarian Party’s presidential ticket.

Mair, a former Republican National Committee online communications director, called Trump a “loudmouthed dick” on CNN Wednesday, adding that she expects him to continue “basically acting as if he’s on a suicide mission and aiming to take the whole rest of the party down with him.”

Critics say the Libertarian ticket is working to elect Clinton by siphoning votes away from Trump.

Aside from politics junkies, most people think of Libertarians as vaguely conservative so it’s hard to argue with that critique.

The ticket this year consists of two former Republicans, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson and his would-be vice president, former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld.

Both men say nice things about Democrat standard-bearer Hillary Clinton. Weld said she was “by and large a good secretary of state,” and Johnson called her “a wonderful public servant.” Referring to the end run Clinton did around public records laws by maintaining private email servers, Johnson said “I don’t think there was criminal intent on her part.”

The two men are Clinton shills, Breitbart’s Patrick Howley opines.

“The Johnson-Weld team seems to think that libertarianism is mostly about admitting as many immigrants to the United States as possible. This is a far cry from Ron Paul’s pro-borders libertarian movement of a few years ago. The libertarian movement has shifted to the progressive globalist Left.”

Johnson even attacks religious freedom laws, likening them to a “black hole.”

Such laws might “open up a plethora of discrimination that you never believed could exist,” Johnson said. “And it’ll start with Muslims.”

While America is under siege by homicidal Islamofascists, Johnson and the rest of the nation’s left-wingers are worried that somewhere in the country a Muslim woman might have to take her veil off to pose for a driver license photo.

It’s a pretty piddling matter to be concerned about given that America’s future is on the line.

An Olympic medal in incitement

August 5, 2016

An Olympic medal in incitement, Israel Hayom, Nadav Shragai, August 5, 2016

The Olympics are supposed to be a celebration of the best in humanity. But the Palestinian delegation is being led by a terrorist who still incites to violence against Israel. Even at the highest level, it seems, sport cannot free itself from politics.

rajoub1

Even before the opening ceremony, the Rio de Janeiro Olympics left a somewhat bitter taste in the mouths of Israelis. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict managed to worm its way into the most important sporting event in the world, one that is supposed to be free from politics and certainly from terrorism. Jibril Rajoub — former head of the Palestinian Preventive Security Force and a contender for the leadership of the Palestinian Authority after President Mahmoud Abbas’ time is up, an avowed supporter of terrorism who has incited to murder even during this most recent wave of terrorist violence — was the man chosen by the Palestinians to head their Olympic committee.

Israel, the International Olympic Committee, and the Olympic Committee of Israel have refrained from taking any action against Rajoub, given the importance of the Arab vote on the IOC. But bereaved families, the terrorist victims advocacy organization Almagor, and the Palestinian Media Watch watchdog organization, which has for years documented and translated Rajoub’s statements in the Palestinian press, are finding it hard to stand by quietly in the face of such absurdity: The man who openly supported terrorism and this year congratulated murderous terrorists on Palestinian television broadcasts,the man who swore only a few years ago that if the Palestinians ever had a nuclear weapon, they would use it immediately (against Israel), will be walking around in a tie in the next few days, smiling at cocktail receptions during this sporting event that symbolizes unity among nations and bridges to peace.

The material on Rajoub, some of which held hope for leaders of Israel’s security apparatus in the past, is hardly a state secret. The Rajoub File, which researchers from Palestinian Media Watch have spent the last few weeks compiling, was recently placed before Israeli decision-makers. The unprecedented decision by the IOC under its German head, Thomas Bach, to hold the first memorial ceremony for the 11 Israeli athletes murdered by Palestinian terrorists at the Munich Games in 1972 stands in contrast to the IOC’s refusal to do a thing about Rajoub.

The IOC generally does not interfere in politics, even when it uses them for its own purposes. Some well-known historical examples of that include the Berlin Olympics in 1936, which were opened by Nazi leader Adolf Hitler; and on the other end of the spectrum, during the Cold War, the decisions by the U.S. to boycott the 1980 Olympic Games in Moscow and by the former USSR to boycott the 1984 Games in Los Angeles.

On the other hand, according to a study prepared a week ago by Israel’s Wingate Institute, despite the IOC’s general disinclination for international intervention, the body has been involved more than once in decisions of a diplomatic nature, when it believes that doing so would truly contribute to Olympic values. Germany and Austria were kept out of the 1920 Olympics because of their responsibility for World War I; Germany and Japan were excluded from the London Games in 1948 because of their responsibility for World War II. The IOC excluded South Africa from the Olympic movement in 1964, an international contribution to the fight against that country’s apartheid regime. However, for years, political pressure kept the IOC from recognizing East Germany or Taiwan as separate sporting entities — and political pressure has, as we know, led it to recognize the Olympic committees of the Palestinians and Kosovo, without either of them having been recognized as a state by the U.N.

The Rajoub case is a different matter. This isn’t a country, but a person who represents a political-national entity, and he is a classic example of how politics can influence sports. In a sporting world free from politics, a supporter of terrorism like Rajoub would have been tossed out the door long ago. But Rajoub has backing.

Rajoub was once sentenced to life in prison, but was released under the Jibril deal in 1985. He participated in the First Intifada, was deported to Lebanon in 1992, and returned to Israel in 1994, after the Oslo Accords were signed. As part of his job as head of the Palestinian Preventive Security Force, Rajoub helped Israel thwart several terrorist attacks and prevented his people from taking part in terrorism. However, his command center was destroyed by the IDF after a firefight during Operation Defensive Shield in 2002. Over the past few years, he has once again been backing terrorism, or “martyrdom,” as he calls it. The Arab bloc on the IOC, comprising 46 Muslim countries, gives him a political screen. Rajoub, 63, is effectively unimpeachable. His roles as chairman of the Palestinian Olympic Committee and the Palestinian Football Association have raised his status with the Palestinian public. In the past, he threatened to keep Israel out of the Olympics, but his efforts were torpedoed. Israel is convinced that any attack on Rajoub could cause immediate harm to the status of Israeli athletes in the Olympic Games and other athletic bodies, too, such as FIFA, the international soccer federation.

All that the bereaved families, groups like Almagor, and Palestinian Media Watch can do now is lift their voices and cry out. This week, they urged the IOC to remove Rajoub from his role as head of the POC and cut off contact with him. It was a moral cry, not a pragmatic one. Even they know that Rajoub isn’t going anywhere. But the hefty documentation in the Rajoub File tells the story of the man who, starting tonight, is a guest in Rio de Janeiro. It’s also the story of the ties between sports and politics, and sports and terrorism.

Sponsorship of the ‘Martyrdom Tournament’

Rajoub, who also serves as undersecretary for the Fatah Central Committee, marked his path in the latest terrorism wave very clearly on the day Israel released the bodies of 17 Palestinian terrorists for burial. The head of the POC noted that the terrorists’ actions had been a source of “pride for us all,” “acts of heroism by individuals,” and “a crown of glory on the heads of the Palestinians.”

“We in the Fatah movement welcome them and encourage them [terrorists],” he said. “There is a group of people, starting with our brother Muhannad Halabi [who stabbed Rabbi Nehemia Lavie and Aharon Bennett to death near the Western Wall last Sukkot] and down to the latest martyr … there is competition between individuals. This is one issue we need to focus on — are we for it, or against it? I say, we on the Central Committee have discussed this matter. We are in favor.” Rajoub said. He also honored Halabi by naming an athletic event after him.

The POC chairman remains consistent in his outlook. He reiterated: “We say to the 145 martyrs [Palestinians killed between October 2015 and January 2016, mostly during terrorist activity] — you are heroes and we congratulate you. … You are a crown upon our heads.”

The terrorist attacks, Rajoub clarified on the official PLO television station, are “acts of heroism by individuals and I am proud of them. I congratulate everyone who carried them out.”

Palestinian Media Watch Chairman Itamar Marcus notes that Rajoub is very calculating in his support of terrorism.

“He calls on the Palestinians [to commit] acts of murder as individuals, against Israelis in ‘occupied territories,’ a term the Palestinians sometimes use to denote all of Israel, and sometimes just in the West Bank or Jerusalem,” Marcus said.

Rajoub himself put it this way: “The international community doesn’t accept buses blowing up in Tel Aviv, but it doesn’t question what happens to a settler or a soldier who is in the occupied territories in the wrong place at the wrong time. No one asks about that. Therefore, we want to fight in a way that keeps the international community on our side.”

Rajoub, who worked alongside PLO founder Yasser Arafat in Tunisia, has continually sponsored athletic events in the memory of terrorist killers, such as the “Martyr Dalal Mughrabi Tournament.” Mughrabi led a terrorist attack on an Israeli bus in 1978, in which 37 civilians, including 12 children, were killed. A fencing tournament was named after arch-terrorist Abu Jihad, who according to the PLO was responsible for the deaths of 125 Israelis. Another event was named for Abu Ali Mustafa, former secretary general of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, who was responsible for a number of terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians during the Second Intifada. A few years ago, Rajoub also attended a sports event in honor of Ali Hassan Salameh, chief security officer of the PLO, who was among the planners of the attack on the Israeli athletes in Munich in 1972.

Rajoub insisted that Hamas keep its “weapons of resistance” and in future join forces with Fatah in its fight against Israel, saying, “My brothers [in Hamas], we see your weapons, your weapons of resistance, as sacred. We won’t harm them. We won’t pursue them or track them, but could you put them away? At the moment of truth, we’ll all fight together.”

In April 2013, Rajoub gave an interview to a Lebanese television station in which he declared: “I swear that if we had nuclear weapons, we would have used them [against Israel] this morning.” Even after his remarks were published in the Israeli media, Rajoub did not retract them and told a Palestinian interviewer: “When someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first, and don’t be killed. … I’m certain that if Hitler would rise again, he would learn from them [the Israelis].”

Ziyad and Mustafa Ghneimat, who murdered Meir Ben Yair and Michal Cohen near the Massua Forest in 1985, were embraced by Rajoub after their release from prison and given certificates of commendation. Rajoub also praised Hamas’ abduction of Israeli soldiers as a method of freeing “prisoners,” praised the abduction of Gilad Schalit, and said he saluted Schalit’s kidnappers.

One of the principles of the Olympic Games, Marcus and the bereaved families remind us, is for sports and competition to serve as a bridge to peace and unity between nations. One of the missions of the IOC, as explicitly stated in the Olympic charter, is to “place sport at the service of humanity and thereby to promote peace.” Nevertheless, Rajoub and the Palestinian Authority absolutely refuse to hold athletic events designed to promote peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and threaten to take legal action against Palestinian athletes who participate in sporting events with Israel. The PA considers such events “normalization” with Israel and collaboration with “the occupation.”

Normalization is a crime

Rajoub plays a major role in blocking athletic events between Israel and the Palestinians, in a manner that blatantly contradicts the Olympic spirit. After Operation Protective Edge in 2014, children from Sderot and the Gaza Strip took part in a friendly soccer match organized by the Peres Center for Peace. Rajoub was infuriated and called the match a “crime against humanity.” He made it clear that “normalization with the Zionist occupation in the field of sports is a crime.”

According to Palestinian Media Watch, Rajoub is aware that preventing sporting events designed to foster peace goes against the underlying principle of international sports, the Olympic Games in particular. Therefore, he adopts different language when dealing with senior international sports officials. In a letter in English to former FIFA head Sepp Blatter, Rajoub writes that sports can serve as a bridge to connect people.

When speaking to Arabs, however, he expresses himself differently: “This country, Israel, is a country of punks. The fascists could learn from this country. … Anyone who takes part in any sporting activity with Israelis, I’ll erase him from the lists of the [athletic] federations, whether it’s a player, a coach, a referee, or heaven forbid a team. … I won’t allow or agree to any match between the Arabs and Israel.”

In another instance, Rajoub stressed that “the term normalization does not exist in the Palestinian sports dictionary. … I say to you, there will never be normalization in sports.”

Rajoub also called for Israel to be kicked out of international sports federations and for Palestinian sports to be set up as “a method of resistance against Israel.”

Hillel Appelbaum, cousin of Dr. David Appelbaum, who was murdered along with his daughter Nava in a suicide bombing at Cafe Hillel in Jerusalem 13 years ago, made a formal appeal to the IOC about Rajoub, aided by the Mattot Arim advocacy movement. He asked the IOC to cut all ties with Rajoub. His appeal was rejected.

Although material from over two years ago supposedly shows Rajoub — not using his title as chairman of the Palestinian Olympic Committee — saying that the POC under his leadership was working to improve relations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority through sports, documentation exposed in the report by Palestinian Media Watch shows up the opposite: Rajoub has been inciting to terrorism over the past two years; he uses his title as chairman of the POC when doing so; and the POC under his leadership opposes, and even works assiduously, to normalize sporting activity with Israel.

President Reuven Rivlin, to whom Appelbaum sent a copy of his letter to the IOC, characterizes the appeal as “of the utmost morality,” and noted in his reply to the Appelbaum family that he was “sorry to learn of the expressions of incitement coming from the man who heads the [Palestinian] Olympic Committee.”

Zvi Warshaviak, who headed the Israeli Olympic Committee for 16 years until 2013, said the Muslim bloc’s strength on the IOC makes any Israeli protest or action against Rajoub irrelevant.

“I’m a right-winger, but I know the reality of that organization,” Warshaviak said. “Even the German chairman, Bach, who is a supporter of Israel, would be happy to clear his organization of politics, but he also realizes the limitations to his power. Rajoub himself learned what he knows in Israeli prisons. He formed close ties with the country’s top security echelon and apparently made deals with senior Israeli officials. Today, to improve his position in the fight to inherit the PA leadership, he is radicalizing his positions and trying to make headlines. I would suggest we not respond to him.”

Why did it take 44 years for the IOC to agree to hold a ceremony in memory of the 11 Israeli athletes murdered in Munich?

“Arab states opposed any ceremony. They argued that the people who killed most of the athletes were the Germans, in their failed attempt to free the hostages, and that the Germans were the ones who killed the terrorists, and that if a ceremony is held, it should be in memory of the terrorists, too. Of course, we didn’t agree to that, and their majority blocked any other possibility for years,” Warshaviak said.

If so, how did the IOC’s position change?

“Thomas Bach, who four years ago held a very respectful ceremony at the airport where our athletes were murdered, which included a commitment to establish a museum in the victims’ memory, found a solution: There will be a stone memorial plaque on which the names of our 11 murdered [athletes] will be inscribed, along with the names of two of the spectators at the Atlanta Olympics, who were killed by a bomb, and the name of another athlete from the Republic of Georgia, who slipped and died during the Winter Olympics. The plaque will be moved from one Olympic Games to the next. It will be set up in the middle of the athletes’ village, and a ceremony will be held around it every four years,” he said.

‘Blood on his hands’

Ilana Romano, widow of the Israeli weightlifter Yossef Romano who was murdered at the Munich Olympics, refuses to discuss the scandal of Rajoub, a supporter of terrorism, heading the Palestinian delegation to the Games.

“Any discussion by me will simply serve his [interests]. I don’t want to turn him into ‘poor thing’ or give him media attention,” Romano says. However, she expects Rajoub to “condemn the murder of the athletes in Munich and the continuation of terrorism. As long as he doesn’t do that, he has blood on his hands.”

Romano notes that the families of the murdered athletes are satisfied with their gain: the IOC holding the first memorial ceremony for their murdered loved ones, “despite our original demand — a minute of silence in memory of the murdered athletes at the opening ceremony — being blocked by the Arab states on the IOC.”

Dvora Appelbaum, who lost her husband and daughter in the suicide bombing at Cafe Hillel, is not willing to stay quiet about Rajoub and the Olympics. Appelbaum calls the IOC both absurd and hypocritical.

“For over 40 years, the organization that did nothing to initiate a memorial ceremony for the Israeli athletes murdered at the Munich Olympics is now giving legitimacy to a person, a former terrorist, who even today continues to use his public position to glorify and back acts of terrorism against Israelis,” she said.

Yossi Tzur, the father of Assaf, one of the 17 people murdered in the No. 37 bus bombing in Haifa 12 years ago, who is currently a pillar of the Almagor Terror Victims Association, says that Rajoub’s statements over the years are equivalent to those of the greatest enemies of the Jewish people throughout the generations.

“It would be best if the sponsors of the Olympics would let the scales fall from their eyes and realize that it isn’t possible at the same event to hold a memorial ceremony for the Israeli athletes murdered in Munich by Palestinian terrorists while at the same time hosting a delegation head who is currently glorifying Palestinian terrorism,” Tzur says.

Yehezkel Lavi, the father of the late Rabbi Nehemia Lavi, says the honor the PA gives to a person such as Rajoub and other inciters who support terrorism is a source of pain and sorrow to the bereaved families.

“The murderer of my son had a monument erected in his village. His act is glorified and he and those like him become an example for Palestinian society. It hurts us that no real steps are being taken against that incitement. Now that one of the biggest inciters to terrorism is serving as head of an Olympic delegation, at an event that is supposed to build bridges of peace between people and nations, it pains us even more. This man should have been expelled from the Olympics,” Lavi said.

The Rajoub File, the report that documents his many statements supporting terrorism over the years, was submitted to Israel Hayom this week, as well as to the PA Spokesperson’s Office, which said it handed it over to Rajoub. Israel Hayom tried to reach Rajoub on his cell phone twice, and finally reached an aide, who said that Rajoub was not interested in commenting.

Iran Targets Its Largest Minority

August 5, 2016

Iran Targets Its Largest Minority, Gatestone Institute via YouTube, August 5, 2016

The blurb beneath the video states,

The Iranian regime that hangs and imprisons peace-loving people for their beliefs is today a major threat to the free world. Iran is building a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. Does it not seem perverse that the UN, the EU and the US administration smile fondly on the persecutors and defame the protectors?

OBAMA LIED! US Iranian Hostage Says Iran Would Not Let Plane Leave Until Ransom Plane Arrived

August 5, 2016

OBAMA LIED! US Iranian Hostage Says Iran Would Not Let Plane Leave Until Ransom Plane Arrived, Fox News via YouTube, August 4, 2016

(Please see also, Obama’s Ransom Payment (4) — DM)

Europeans Abolished Slavery; Africans/Muslims Still Practice it

August 4, 2016

Europeans Abolished Slavery; Africans/Muslims Still Practice it, Front Page MagazineIlana Mercer, August 4, 2016

slaves_ruvuma

First he exposed the History Channel’s miniseries “Roots” as root-and-brunch fiction. Now, the courageous epistolary warrior Kunta (Jack) Kerwick has turned his attention to correcting lies about slavery, promulgated in media and scholarly circles.

A point forcefully made by Kerwick is that although a vibrant, indigenous slave trade was conducted well into the nineteenth century in the interior of West Africa, slavery has become the White Man’s cross to bear.

Also omitted, in the course of the “honest” conversation about race directed by our political masters, is that credit for the demise of the slave trade in Africa belongs to Europeans. In his compact study, The Slave Trade, British historian Jeremy Black (London, 2006), highlights the “leading role Britain played in the abolition of slavery [as]… an example of an ethical foreign policy.” Britain agonized over this repugnant institution, failed to reconcile it with the Christian faith, and consequently abolished it.

Professor Black condemns the exclusive focus on the Atlantic—or transatlantic—slave trade to the exclusion of the robust slave trade conducted by Arabs across the Sahara Desert. Or, across the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea to markets in the Middle East. This exclusive focus on westerners as slave owners and traders, notes Black, “fits with the [political] narrative of Western exploitation” of underdeveloped countries and their people.

The greatest development economist to live was Lord P.T. Bauer. As The Economist quipped, Bauer was to foreign aid what Friedrich Hayek was to socialism: a slayer. In his Dissent on Development (London, 1971), Bauer bolstered Black’s point well before the latter made it: “The slave trade between Africa and the Middle East antedated the Atlantic slave trade by centuries, and far outlasted it. Tens of millions of Africans were carried away—north through the Sahara, and from East Africa, by Arab and Muslim slave traders, well before Europeans took up the trade from West Africa.”

Arab affinity for slavery, ethnic prejudice and purges lives on today in the treatment, for example, of blacks in Darfur and Yazidi Kurds in Iraq.

Considering Europeans were not alone in the slave trade, Black, in particular, questions “the commonplace identification of slavery with racism,” given that, like serfdom, slavery was a device (albeit an inefficient one) “to ensure labor availability and control.”

At its most savage, child slavery still thrives in Haiti in the form of the “Restavec system.” Children are kept in grinding poverty and worked to the bone. In the Anglo-American and European worlds this would be considered perverse in the extreme; in Haiti owning a Restavec is a status symbol. (Haiti, incidentally, is another spot on the globe that “Hillary Clinton’s State Department” “helped ruin,” by ensconcing an illegitimate and corrupt leader, with a preference for corrupt NGOs such as … The Clinton Foundation.)

The savagery of the indigenous slave trade in the interior of West Africa owed a lot to the rivalries and relationships between Africans powers. By Black’s telling, “Both Arabs and Europeans worked in collaboration with native polities that provided the slaves through raids and war carried out against their neighbors.”

For the Atlantic slave trade, contemporary Americans and Britons have been expiating at every turn. But more than engendering a cult of apology, the Atlantic slave trade has been instrumental in the effort to control and define the past as an “aspect of current politics,” not least in shaping the historical treatment of the Civil War, the South, and the American Founding Fathers.

Jeremy Black rejects these ritual apologies as empty ploys, which “all too often conform to fatuous arguments about ‘closure,’ resolution, and being unable to move on until we acknowledge the past.” In reality, this bowing-and-scraping, by obsequious Anglo-Americans, to their black political overlords, entails the opposite of all these, and, instead, involves the reiteration and institutionalization of racial grievance.

The cult of apology that has gripped America and Britain is uniquely Western. What other people would agonize over events they had no part in, personally, for damages they did not inflict?

Grievance is leveled at a collective, all whites, for infractions it did not commit: Africans who were not enslaved are seen as having an ineffable claim against Europeans who did not enslave them.

At its core, the argument against racism, at least as it works to further black interests, is an argument against collectivism. You’re meant to avoid judging an entire people based on the color of their epidermis or the conduct of a statistically significant number of them.

It is, however, deemed perfectly acceptable to malign and milk Europeans for all they’re worth, based on the lack of pigment in their skin and their overall better socio-economic performance.

**

Adapted from Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011) by ILANA Mercer.

Right Angle: Spin Cycle

August 4, 2016

Right Angle: Spin Cycle, Bill Whittle Channel via YouTube, August 4, 2016

Blurb beneath the video:

DNC email leaks a problem? It must have been the Russians! Trump benefits! TRUMP MUST BE A RUSSIAN SPY!!

State Dept. Says Program to Dissuade Jihadis Failed. So They TRIPLE Its Budget

August 4, 2016

State Dept. Says Program to Dissuade Jihadis Failed. So They TRIPLE Its Budget, PJ MediaRobert Spencer, August 4, 2016

(How about pamphlets showing that Islamic terrorism causes global warming? And free ham sandwiches? — DM)

wh cve

No matter how much money they pour into it, this program will fail on the drawing board until the State Department drops its willful ignorance about the ideology that fuels and motivates the jihad.

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

Even in its final months, the Obama administration continues to pour taxpayer money into its disastrous projects designed to “counter violent extremism.” The projects have failed, and were foredoomed to fail because of the administration’s policy of denying and ignoring the enemy’s motivating ideology.

The New York Times reported Thursday:

[T]he Obama administration has revamped a program designed to lure foreign fighters away from extremist groups like the Islamic State, focusing on a series of new advertisements and social media posts that seek to appeal to emotion rather than logic.

Emotion, logic, whatever. No such approach can work as long as the administration refuses to admit what inspires Muslims to join jihad groups in the first place.

This latest bout of wishful thinking and fantasy-based policymaking comes at a high cost to the taxpayer:

Money for the program, which is managed by the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, tripled this year, to $16 million, after administration officials concluded that past efforts that had attempted to scare potential militants away from the extremist groups were not working.

At least the government correctly concluded that, indeed, the programs were not working:

[M]ultiple reboots have shown how hard it has been for these programs to find traction. … [R]ecent attacks in Turkey, Iraq, France and Bangladesh seemed to show extremism has been spreading.

But this time, the Times assures us, it’s going to be different:

The new initiatives have been tailored to keep the United States government’s involvement as low-key — and in some cases, as secretive — as possible, because overt American backing for some projects had turned off the exact group of disaffected young men that the campaign is trying to reach.

So the State Department finally realized that Muslims who hate America will not be dissuaded via appeals from … America?

Baby steps! Still — not going to work. The Times reports:

“[T]hese new efforts include using Facebook videos, Instagram ads and other social media that have been designed to convince young men and women that joining the militants’ fight means breaking their mothers’ hearts, tearing apart their families and leaving their loved ones to lives of emptiness.”

So the latest plan from the Obama administration rests on this assumption: A young man who thinks he is serving Allah in a cause commanded by the supreme being — and who thinks that being killed will secure a place in Paradise for himself and (in accord with statements attributed to Muhammad) for his family — will be dissuaded by realizing his mother might miss him.

The State Department is forbidden, as a matter of policy, from studying or understanding the jihadi worldview. They instead operate under the assumption that Muslims aspiring to jihad have the same basic values and priorities of modern secular Westerners. This assumption is, at best, unproven.

This Keystone Kops myopia is longstanding. The Times writes:

[P]ast efforts from the administration had sought to frighten potential jihadists with warnings that waging war against the West would get them killed, but officials concluded that the warnings actually served the opposite purpose of glorifying militancy.

The willful blindness necessary to believe that jihadis — who repeatedly avow that they “love death” — could be dissuaded from jihad in any significant numbers by fear of death is breathtaking. It epitomizes how wrongheaded the administration’s approach has been from the beginning.

Even the Times acknowledges this about the initiative, while citing unnamed “critics”:

 [The initiative] was unlikely to have done anything to dissuade young people from joining either Al Qaeda or the Islamic State.

However, while the New York Times admits that the administration’s program to dissuade jihadis has thus far been completely ineffective, it has no idea why.

In reality, all possible versions of this program are doomed to failure because they manifest no understanding whatsoever of the jihadis’ worldview, beliefs, assumptions, motives, and goals. None of this is surprising, since the Obama administration has forbidden the examination and discussion of all of that.

Take, for example, one image that the State Department published on Twitter. It says:

Women under ISIS are enslaved, battered, beaten, humiliated, flogged.

Obviously this would deter someone from becoming a jihadi only if he already thought it was terrible for women to be enslaved, battered, beaten, humiliated, and flogged.

The State Department wonks who came up with this weren’t allowed to learn from the Qur’an. So they obviously don’t know that the Qur’an mandates the enslavement of infidel women(4:3; 4:24; 23:1-6; 33:50; 70:30) and the beating of disobedient women (4:34).

A Muslim who knows that is unlikely to be troubled by the prospect of the Islamic State beating or enslaving women.

The Times adds:

On Sept. 11, 2014, for example, an Al Qaeda leader posted on Twitter that ‘on this day, in 2001, the USA’s largest economic shrine, the idol of capitalism was brought to the ground.’ The State Department quickly responded on Twitter by posting a photo of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Islamic State leader, wearing a Rolex watch: “Nobody’s a bigger fan of the fruits of capitalism than so-called #ISIS Caliph.”

This, too, was myopic: from an Islamic standpoint, the Rolex was not a sign of hypocrisy, since Islam does not have the reverence for asceticism that Christianity has. Rather, it was a sign that Allah had blessed the caliph, since blessings are promised to the pious in both this world and the next – and those blessings specifically include the spoils of war against non-Muslims.

The caliph could have been signaling to his followers: “Kill an infidel, take his Rolex.”

No matter how much money they pour into it, this program will fail on the drawing board until the State Department drops its willful ignorance about the ideology that fuels and motivates the jihad.

Terror strikes London 11 years after July bombings

August 4, 2016

Terror strikes London 11 years after July bombings, DEBKAfile, August 4, 2016

1 (4)

A woman in her 60s was knifed to death Wednesday night, July 3, in a rampage in London’s Russell Square by a 19-year old man, who injured another six people before police brought him down with a Taser electric shock gun. The site near London University and the British Museum, not far from Oxford Street, was close to the scenes of the July 7 attacks eleven years ago, when Islamist bombers murdered 52 people and injured more than 700 on the London underground rail and a bus.

“Early indications suggest that mental health is a significant factor in this case and that is one major line of inquiry,” London Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley told reporters. “But of course… terrorism as a motivation remains but one line of inquiry for us to explore,” said Rowley, who is Britain’s most senior anti-terrorism officer.

That it is a major line of inquiry was demonstrated by police action Thursday morning to cordon off Russell Square and much of London’s West End.

The killer, described by witnesses as wearing a motorbike helmet and attacking people at random,struck less than 24 hours after the Metropolitan London police announcement of an extra 600 armed marksmen for the streets of London against a terror threat. They attack may well be read as a warning that such precautions would be of no avail in preventing a jihadist attack on the British capital.

While holding back the killer’s identity, British anti-terror squads are no doubt searching his residence and other locations connected to his family and friends.

Firearms_officers_London_3.8.16

Tuesday night, shortly before the attack, DEBKAfile carried this report.

Armed police prepare to deploy from Hyde Park, central London, after Scotland Yard announced Wednesday, Aug. 3 that the biggest police force in Britain is to put its first 600 additional armed officers on public patrols on the main streets and landmarks of London, as part of its anti-terrorism plans.

Metropolitan Police chief Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said that, following the terror attacks in Europe, more marksmen were trained and operationally ready for public patrol up to a total of 1,500 firearms officers.

Although British cops are proud of traditionally not carrying firearms, the Met chief said “I think people understand that where you are going to have people as enemies who’ve got guns, we’ve got to have guns.”

Already, he added, “They pass through airports where we have armed officers, they pass through railway stations where they see firearms, and in some of our big iconic locations, we’ve already got armed patrols – if you look at Parliament, Downing Street – so it’s not entirely new.”

DEBKAfile’s exclusive counterterrorism sources can name the men behind the upsurge of Islamic terror violence in West Europe last month: the Nice attack on July 14, which left 84 dead; the suicide bombing in Ansbach in Bavaria, Germany, on July 24, which left 15 people injured, and the murder of a French priest at a suburban church in Normandy on July 26.

They are two Frenchmen: Amn al-Kharji (ISIS codename: Abu Sulayman al-Faransi), who is head of the Islamic State’s secretive external operations wing and, under his command, Fabien Clain (ISIS codename: Salim Benghalem), a convert to Islam who heads European terror operations.

It was Benghalem who picked the targets of the Paris raids last November 2015, which left 132 people dead and hundreds wounded, and the Nice truck bombing, which murdered 84 victims on July 14, Bastille Day.

This week, he orchestrated the first known jihadist attack on a Christian place of prayer in Europe after instigating the first ISIS attacks in Germany.

Up until recently, Western intelligence services used ISIS as the generic term for any jihadist attacks in a European city, be it Brussels, Istanbul, Nice, Munich, Wurzburg or Ansbach. But no high-profile ISIS executives were ever named, for fear of impairing their efforts to plant agents or informers inside the murderous organization’s operational ranks in Europe and the Middle East.

These efforts have so far got nowhere. These two top maser-terrorists have been agile enough to stay a step or two ahead of Western counterterrorism agencies. The weeks and months ahead are therefore likely to see more terror outrages at unknown locations, executed with assorted weaponry by unforeseen methods.

Europe is therefore on high terror alert, braced for more jihadist attacks. And the streets of London will see armed cops on patrol.

General Allen’s Service to Al Qaeda’s Paymasters

August 4, 2016

General Allen’s Service to Al Qaeda’s Paymasters, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, August 4, 2016

ga (1)

After two American soldiers were murdered by an Islamic terrorist in Afghanistan while a crowd of protesters shouted “Death to Americans” and “Death to Infidels”, General Allen visited his men. 

“There will be moments like this when you’re searching for the meaning of this loss. There will be moments like this when your emotions are governed by anger and a desire to strike back,” Allen pleaded. “Now is not the time for revenge, now is not the time for vengeance.”

General Allen had already apologized to the killers for the “desecration” of the Koran by American soldiers who had been destroying copies of the hateful document being used by Taliban prisoners to send notes to each other. “I offer my sincere apologies for any offence this may have caused, to the president of Afghanistan, the government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and most importantly, to the noble people of Afghanistan,” he had whined.

The “noble people” of Afghanistan were the ones chanting “Death to America” and “Death to Infidels”.

Meanwhile General Allen was telling the American soldiers grieving the loss of their own that the real tragedy was the destruction of the terrorist books. “Now is how we show the Afghan people that as bad as that act was in Bagram, it was unintentional and Americans and ISAF soldiers do not stand for this.”

Then Allen said that he was “proud” to call General Sher Mohammad Karimi “my brother”. Karimi, was the Afghan military strongman who had defended previous attacks on NATO troops and demanded that the American soldiers be put on trial.

“We admit our mistake,” General Allen cringingly continued. “We ask for our forgiveness.”

Then he praised the “Holy Koran”. Six American military personnel faced administrative punishments for doing their duty in order to appease the murderous Islamic mob in all its nobility in Afghanistan.

This was typical of General Allen’s disgraceful tenure. It is also typical of his post-military career which has included a prominent spot at Brookings and a speaking slot at the Democratic National Convention. After his enthusiastic endorsement of Hillary and attacks on Trump, Hillary has insisted that anyone who criticizes Allen is not fit to be president because Allen is a “hero and a patriot”.

If there’s anyone who is an expert on heroism and patriotism, it’s Hillary.

Allen’s heroic post-military career brought him to Brookings. The road from the think tank runs to Qatar which donated nearly $15 million to promote its agenda. That agenda took General Allen to its US-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar.

Allen praised the “magnificent institutions” of Qatar. He endorsed the mobilization of the Jihadist terror groups known as Popular Mobilization Forces, some of whom have American blood on their hands and are owned and operated by Iran. Allen insisted that “many PMF fighters are not Shia-hardliners but Iraqis who volunteered last summer, answering Grand Ayatolah Ali Sistanti’s fatwa to defend Iraq.”

Then Allen sank to a new unimaginable low by urging compassion toward ISIS Jihadists from abroad.

“We must strive to be a Coalition of compassionate states,” Allen insisted. “There is no denying that many societies find the idea of rehabilitating foreign fighters objectionable. And indeed, those who have broken the laws of our lands must be held accountable. But long-term detention cannot be the sole means of dealing with returning foreign fighters.”

Then he touted “deradicalization” and “reintegration” programs by Muslim countries for Jihadists.

Allen claimed that seeing the “Muslim faith practiced and lived” in Afghanistan had made him a “better Christian”. But his messaging wasn’t surprising considering his employment and his location.

Qatar was a key international state sponsor of terror.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, had been tipped off by a member of the Qatari royal family. The same Qatari royal family whose shindig Allen had shown up to perform at. Their terrorist media outlet, Al Jazeera, had been Al Qaeda’s media drop outlet of choice.

Qatar is a strong backer of Hamas. It has been accused of funding Al Qaeda. More recently it’s been linked to backing Al Qaeda’s local platform in Syria, the Al Nusra Front. The Taliban opened an office in Qatar. Even an early ISIS leader got his start with patronage from Qatar’s royal family.

A strong backer of the Arab Spring, Qatar exploited the chaos by aggressively smuggling weapons to Jihadists in the region. Two years ago, a bipartisan majority on the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and its Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade had called for an investigation of Qatar’s links to terrorist funding.

General Allen’s visit to Qatar was shameful. He was praising and pressing the flesh of the paymasters of Islamic terrorists whose hands were and are covered in American blood. Allen had betrayed the soldiers fighting against Islamic terrorists. He had betrayed his country and his cause. He is a traitor to both.

Allen’s disgusting DNC performance was the climax of a series of betrayals. It is not the worst speech he has ever given. Nor is it the most dishonest or the most despicable.

General Allen has gone from serving his country to serving the enemies of his country. That is the man whose endorsement Hillary Clinton is proudly waving around as if it is a badge of honor instead of a badge of shame.

Allen is neither a hero nor a patriot. He is a man who has sold his soul to the highest bidder. Hillary Clinton has won this latest bid for Allen’s shopworn soul, alongside the tyrants of Qatar who trade in human slaves on a global scale. It is likely worth about as much as Hillary’s own soul. Whatever tattered spiritual scraps are left of it.

The mass deaths of American soldiers in Afghanistan under Obama still remains a largely untold story. It is the story of how Obama and his collaborators among the military elite sold out our soldiers and left them to die on the battlefield without allowing them to defend themselves so as not to offend the “noble people” of Afghanistan and their fine religious traditions.

74.5% of American deaths in Afghanistan occurred under Obama. Countless more came home, crippled and scarred. While General Allen hobnobs at parties with Al Qaeda bosses, the men he betrayed come back in body bags.

They are heroes. Allen is a traitor.

Obama’s Ransom Payment (4)

August 4, 2016

Obama’s Ransom Payment (4), Power LineScott Johnson, August 4, 2016

As in all matters related to the Obama administration’s dealing with Iran, the abasement of the United States is complete, the humiliation thorough, the lying pervasive, the damage devastating, the scandal hiding in plain sight.

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

The United States purchased $400 million of cash in European currencies from European central banks; the cash was purchased with American dollars. The United States then delivered the $400 million in cash to the Iranian regime in an unmarked cargo plane on the day that four Americans held by the Iranian regime were released. The transaction was kept secret from the American people. Among other things, the Obama administration sought to conceal the obvious.

Jay Solomon and Carol Lee reported the transaction in a page-one Wall Street Journal story earlier this week. The Journal’s Devlin Barrett has now followed up with a story on the Department of Justice’s objections to the transaction.

Solomon and Lee explain the indirection in the cash payment: “The $400 million was paid in foreign currency because any transaction with Iran in U.S. dollars is illegal under U.S. law.” This is the kind of workaround that would land lesser mortals in prison.

Solomon and Lee somewhat cruelly note: “Since the cash shipment, the intelligence arm of the Revolutionary Guard has arrested two more Iranian-Americans. Tehran has also detained dual-nationals from France, Canada and the U.K. in recent months.”

In following developments related to the nuclear deal with Iran, I have frequently found the Iranian press and Iranian authorities to be a more reliable source of information on their dealing with the Obama administration than the administration itself. I believe that is the case here as well. Solomon and Lee add: “Iranian press reports have quoted senior Iranian defense officials describing the cash as a ransom payment. The Iranian foreign ministry didn’t respond to a request for comment.”

Obama administration spokesman Josh Earnest is not so shy. He was asked about Solomon and Lee’s story at his daily press conference yesterday. C-SPAN has posted the video here. The White House has posted the transcript here.

Earnest was in a tough spot. He defends the indefensible. He denies the undeniable. He castigates those who have observed that Emperor Obama wears no clothes. According to Earnest, they are liars and worse. It is truly a disgusting performance.

I have gone through the transcript to extract questions and excerpt answers of interest. I can only say that it is worth reading. What he says is as interesting as what he doesn’t say.

Has any of the cash gone to support Iran’s terrorist activities? Earnest responds at various points:

[T]he Iranian government has spent the money largely in the way that we expected that they would.

The analysis that we’ve done confirms what we predicted — is that, largely, that money was spent to address the dire economic condition of the nation of Iran.

The President was quite forward-leaning, in advance of the nuclear deal even being completed, in acknowledging that we know that Iran supports terrorism. We know that Iran supports Hezbollah and the Assad regime. And it certainly is possible that some of the money that Iran has is being used for those purposes too.

I think, Ron, the point is right now that we do know how Iran has spent a lot of that money. And the amount of money that Iran has received is far less than what critics predicted. So they were either wrong or lying. You can go ask them.

I trust you can translate the double-talk and disparagement on your own. It sets the pattern here.

Why are we only learning about this particular transaction now? Drawing on the classic scandal playbook, Earnest asserts that this is old news. This is almost laughable:

I guess the point that I’m trying to make, Margaret, is we could not possibly have been more transparent about this arrangement than to have the President of the United States announce it to all of you on live national television on the day that the agreement was reached.

What about the timing of the cash payment coincident with the release of the American prisoners? Analyze this:

Q This financial dispute you mentioned has been going on for 35 years. Why was it necessary to airlift in the pallets of cash on the very weekend that the American prisoners were released?

MR. EARNEST: Again, Scott, the reason is simple. The United States does not have a banking relationship with Iran. So —

Q That explains that it was cash, but it doesn’t explain the timing.

MR. EARNEST: Because we reached the agreement and Iran wanted their money back. So, again —

Q They waited 35 years.

MR. EARNEST: Right, so you might expect that they would be eager for them to get their money back. Again, this all stems from a payment that Iran had made into a U.S. account related to a military sale that didn’t actually go through. The military equipment wasn’t provided. So, again, you could understand why they’re quite eager for the money.

You also would understand that they’re quite eager for the money when you consider that the value of their currency has plummeted, that they haven’t been able to invest in infrastructure, that they’ve got debts that need to be paid, and that they’re in the middle of a recession. So at the time, they were eager to try to address the legitimate concerns of the Iranian people about the state of the Iranian economy.

Q And why was the U.S. government so eager to pay —

MR. EARNEST: I’m sorry?

Q Why was the U.S. eager to deliver the money so quickly?

MR. EARNEST: Well, again, I would not describe the United States as eager — I would describe the Iranians as eager. I think what the United States is, is we’re a country that lives up to the commitments that we make. And that’s exactly what we did.

Another reporter takes a whack:

Q So it’s been called a ransom payment by Iran. That’s not exactly surprising. But would those prisoners have been released had this payment not been made at the time that it was? And so it isn’t essentially a ransom payment then, even if the U.S. does not view it that way?

MR. EARNEST: No. It is not a ransom payment. The United States does not view it that way, and it’s not accurate to describe it that way.

Q So would those prisoners have been released then if this money hadn’t been paid then?

MR. EARNEST: Well, again, I think what is true is that there were a team of negotiators — let me just start from the beginning. What I know is true is there were a team of negotiators in the United States that were interacting with Iranian officials to secure the release of five Americans who were unjustly detained in Iran. That negotiating work was successful and those Americans are at home….

Hmmmm. He really doesn’t want to answer the question. He seems to be taking a long way around avoiding the answer. Then another reporter pursues the point and Earnest resorts to the ad hominem attacks that should be a red flag to sentient observer:

Q I think a lot more people find this interesting than just people who are opposed to it. But, again, would those prisoners have been released then if this money had not been paid then?

MR. EARNEST: What I can tell you is that our negotiators who were talking with the Iranians about what was necessary to secure the release of American citizens in Iran succeeded. That was different than the group of negotiators who were involved in The Hague negotiating with their Iranian counterparts to settle these longstanding financial claims.

Q So because U.S. policy is opposed to ransom payments, even if it were only for the appearance of this not being a ransom payment, why would you not have made Iran wait even a week longer? I mean, why would Iran’s eagerness to get their hands on their money be more important than making sure that this was not a quid pro quo that was based on the exact timing being right?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I think the answer to that is pretty obvious, which is that even a week delay would not have prevented Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio from falsely claiming that they’re a ransom. Because, Michelle, come on, I saw you sigh. If we announced this financial settlement on the same day that the prisoners were released, that’s fodder to our Republican critics. I get that.

After other questions a reporter comes back to the question of ransom:

Q Thanks, Josh. If I can circle back to Iran briefly. Is it your contention that it is not a ransom payment because there was no quid pro quo or because it was Iranian money that was flown in?

MR. EARNEST: It is our contention that there was no ransom paid to secure the release of U.S. citizens who were being unjustly detained in Iran because, A, it’s against the policy of the U.S. government to pay ransoms. And that’s something that we told the Iranians that we would not do. We would not — we have not, we will not pay a ransom to secure the release of U.S. citizens. That’s a fact. That is our policy and that is one that we have assiduously followed.

You don’t have to be a student of logic to observe that there is a certain circularity in Earnest’s answer.

As in all matters related to the Obama administration’s dealing with Iran, the abasement of the United States is complete, the humiliation thorough, the lying pervasive, the damage devastating, the scandal hiding in plain sight.