August | 2016 | WarSclerotic | Page 7

Archive for August 2016

Hillary’s Race War

August 26, 2016

Hillary’s Race War, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield

hill

Hillary Clinton has met with leaders of a racist hate group responsible for torching cities and inciting the murders of police officers.

Deray McKesson, one of the Black Lives Matter hate group leaders she met with, had praised the looting of white people and endorsed cop killers Assata Shakur and Mumia Abu-Jamal. The Black Lives Matter hate group had specifically made a point of targeting white people in “white spaces” for harassment. It would go on to incite the mass murder of police officers in Dallas and other racist atrocities.

Despite all this, Hillary Clinton has never disavowed the racist hate group. Instead she doubled down on supporting the hate group and its icons at the Democratic National Convention.

Now, after Trump’s appeal to the black community, Hillary is desperately trying to divide us by race.

Despite Hillary’s latest hypocritical and self-serving accusations, Donald Trump has never held a meeting with leaders of a racist hate group. Hillary Clinton has. And she has refused all calls by police unions to end her support for a vicious hate group that has championed the release of cop killers and endorsed BDS against Israel.

When an 83-year-old great grandmother is viciously beaten by racist thugs and then set on fire, Hillary Clinton has nothing to say. She has remained silent about the wave of racist violence by her political allies that is sweeping this country and leaving victims battered or dead.

Hillary is trading on accusations of racism to distract attention from her ugly record of pandering to racists to get ahead. As Trump has said, “It’s the oldest play in the Democratic playbook. When Democratic policies fail, they are left with only this one tired argument. You’re racist, you’re racist, you’re racist!”

It’s not Hillary Clinton who has a consistent track record of opposing racists, but Donald Trump.

Trump’s first entry into presidential politics was a bid to block Pat Buchanan from gaining the Reform Party nomination. Trump accused Buchanan of anti-Semitism, racism and Nazi sympathies.

Hillary Clinton claimed that Trump had refused to disavow racist leader David Duke. But Trump had already rejected Duke back when he was considering a presidential campaign in 2000. “So the Reform Party now includes a Klansman—Mr. Duke, a Neo-Nazi—Mr. Buchanan, and a Communist—Ms. Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep.”

If only Hillary Clinton had been as consistent in rejecting the company of Communists, Nazis and assorted racists as Trump has been.

Instead Hillary Clinton met with Black Lives Matter racist DeRay McKesson who spends his time denouncing “whiteness.” And on the other side of the racial line, Hillary Clinton praised the “courage, tenacity and vision” of Margaret Sanger who had delivered a speech to the KKK and whose Negro Project had promoted racial eugenics. Sanger’s pamphlet, “What Every Girl Should Know,” had described Australian aborigines as “the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development”. If this isn’t racism, I don’t know what is.

But according to Hillary Clinton, killing black babies and promoting hatred against white people isn’t racist. But criticizing what the Democrats have done to black communities is.

In her speech, Hillary Clinton denounced Trump’s criticisms of the Democratic exploitation of black communities as racist. According to Hillary Clinton, when Trump bemoaned poverty, lack of ownership and blight in black communities under Democratic rule, that was bigoted.

It’s the opposite of bigotry. Hillary Clinton is so threatened by Trump’s challenge to Democratic hegemony in the black community that she has been forced to resort to the most “tired” of arguments.

There is no defending the track record of the Democrats in black communities. All that Hillary can do is accuse those who point to the tragedy of the inner city of being racists.

The rest of Hillary Clinton’s accusations are equally absurd.

Hillary Clinton accused Trump of somehow being involved with anti-Semitism. This is the same man who said, “I want to thank my Jewish daughter. I have a Jewish daughter.”

The idea that Trump has anything in common with Richard Spencer, the anti-Semitic bigot who coined the term “Alt-Right,” is absurd. There are members of the Alt-Right using Trump to promote themselves. But Trump has no idea who or what they are. And, unlike Hillary, he has a track record of rejecting them.

But Hillary is rerunning her old “vast right-wing conspiracy” meme. Its purpose is to turn the tables on her critics. But her speech is a bizarre rant which claims that Putin has masterminded some sort of global nationalist conspiracy. But Putin isn’t interested in American nationalism. He doesn’t want a strong America. He wants a weak America. He wants the America of Hillary Clinton stretching out a reset button to one of his lackeys and asking the Russian tyranny to forgive us for George W. Bush.

Hillary Clinton denounces Trump as paranoid, but it’s her speech that is throbbing with unhinged paranoia, vague rumors and guilt by association. Even as she tries to claim the mantle of the optimistic candidate, her campaign runs on conspiracy theories and alliances with the vilest of racists.

The Obama years have been the biggest gift to racists of all shades and colors. During his time in office, both the black and white view of race relations has plummeted dramatically. If racist hate groups of both colors are in ascendance, it’s not because of Trump, but because of Obama.

And four to eight years of Hillary continuing this ugly legacy would see them grow even further.

Why would racists want Trump, who has denounced them, when they can have Hillary?

Why would Putin want a stronger America, when he can have more of the inept fumbling and appeasement of the Obama years?

Why would anyone believe Hillary Clinton’s paranoid conspiracy theories when they make no sense?

If Vladimir Putin had wanted to dictate our foreign policy, he couldn’t have done any better than Obama. If black and white racists had wanted to divide us by race, they couldn’t have done any better than Obama.

Hillary Clinton’s disgusting accusations are an attempt to divert attention from the real issues that Trump has raised, from black suffering under Democratic rule to Islamic terrorism.

As Trump has said, “People who speak out against radical Islam, and who warn about refugees, are not Islamophobes. They are decent American citizens who want to uphold our values as a tolerant society, and who want to keep the terrorists out of our country.”

Hillary Clinton wants to bring the terrorists to this country. She wants to continue destroying our national security the way that her mentor in the White House has been doing.

And she will tell any lie and launch any smear to crawl her way to power. Now she’s trying to play on racial divisions while trying to attribute her own tactics to Donald Trump.

Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Obama administration, Pandering, Racism
Tags: Donald Trump, Obama Administration, Racism

Comments: 1 Comment

Syrian Kurds clash with Turkish forces

August 26, 2016

Syrian Kurds clash with Turkish forces, DEBKAfile, August 26, 2016

(Please see also, Biden Gushes to Erdoğan That American People ‘Stand in Awe’ of Turkish ‘Courage’ — DM)

Tanks_invading_Syria_B_24.8.16

Just a few days ago, the Americans were speaking highly of Kurds as the sharpest sword in the coalition’s arsenal for vanquishing the jihadists. Since Biden’s deal with Erdogan on Wednesday, Washington can forget about the Syrian Kurdish PYG or the Iraqi Kurdish Pershmerga as spearheads of the campaigns to liberate Raqqa in Syria and Mosul in Iraq for ISIS.

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

Syrian Kurdish militia commanders are flouting the ultimatum US Vice President Joe Biden handed them Wednesday, Aug. 24 to retreat to east of the Euphrates or else forfeit US support. Instead, DEBKAfile’s military sources report, they decided to stand their ground and fight it out with the Turkish army.

The first clash occurred Thursday overnight, when Kurdish forces from Manbij attacked the positions taken by Turkish tanks in Jarablus, hours after Islamic State forces were put to flight from this border town.

The battles continued into Friday morning, Aug. 26.

The US ultimatum to the Kurds was the outcome of understandings US Vice President Joe Biden reached with Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan in Ankara on Wednesday, hours after the Turkish army crossed into northern Syria.

“Syrian Kurdish forces will lose US support if they don’t retreat to east bank of Euphrates,” the US vice president stated at a news conference.

Yet Thursday night, Turkish officials made an effort to counteract the impression that their military intervention in Syria was coordinated with the United States. They announce that Russian chief of staff Gen. Valery Gerasimov would be arriving in Ankara Friday for talks with his Turkish counterpart, Gen. Hulusi Akar.

The US commander of American troops in Iraq and Syria, Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend, had meanwhile instructed all US Special Operations personnel to withdraw from Syrian-Kurdish YPG militia units, and return to the N. Syrian Rmeilan airfield near Hassaka. This is reported from DEBKAfile military and intelligence sources.

The US general also stopped artillery ammo supplies to the Kurdish militia and the transfer of field intelligence from the fighting in areas newly occupied by the Turkish army.

These measures were temporary, the US officers informed Salih Muslim, Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) leader, and would be lifted after his YPG militia was instructed to pull back from northern Syria and head east of the Euphrates.

Only last week, the Syrian Kurdish militia was riding high, covered in praise for its feat in capturing Manbij with the assistance of US Special Forces.

Their comedown after the US decided to jump aboard the Turkish invasion would be complete, if they complied with the Biden ultimatum. They would forfeit all their hard-won gains from years of combat against the Islamic State, and have to forget their dream of a Kurdish state linking their enclaves along the 900km Syrian-Turkish border.

A stream of information and misinformation is meanwhile muddying the waters as the Kurds in Syria and Iraq absorb the shock of the American turn against them.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Ankara said Thursday that US Secretary of State John Kerry had informed the Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu that the US-backed Syrian Kurdish militias had begun their retreat to the eastern bank of the Euphrates River.

ManbijKoteret480

US sources qualified this claim, confirming only that a ‘main element’ of the Kurds has retreated, but not the entire force. The Kurds were evidently in no hurry to take any marching orders either from Turkey or the United States.

A short Kurdish statement claimed that their forces had indeed withdrawn to the eastern bank of the Euphrates River, but DEBKAfile’s military sources military sources say that a large body of Kurdish fighters is still in place west of the river. Indeed our sources found Kurdish PYG officers adamant in their determination to stay put and take on the Turkish army.

After the Turkish invasion Wednesday, Kurdish leader Salih Muslim declared, “Turkey will be defeated in Syria along with the Islamic State.”

Kurdish units also took up positions on the roads leading to the US base at Rmeilan, ready enforce a blockade. A Kurdish food convoy due at the base Thursday did not arrive.

In Iraq, there is word of a Kurdish Peshmerga mutiny against US instructors at the bases where they are training for the offensive to recapture Mosul from the ISIS.

However, the events of this week around northern Syria have dealt a major setback to the US-led war on ISIS.

Just a few days ago, the Americans were speaking highly of Kurds as the sharpest sword in the coalition’s arsenal for vanquishing the jihadists. Since Biden’s deal with Erdogan on Wednesday, Washington can forget about the Syrian Kurdish PYG or the Iraqi Kurdish Pershmerga as spearheads of the campaigns to liberate Raqqa in Syria and Mosul in Iraq for ISIS.

Categories: Biden, Erdogan, Foreign policy, Kerry, Kurdish fighters, Russia, Syria war, U.S. Military
Tags: Biden, Erdogan, Foreign Policy, Kerry, Kurdish fighters, Military, Russia, S, Syria war, U.S. military

Comments: 2 Comments

Look Who Is Gutting the First Amendment!

August 26, 2016

Look Who Is Gutting the First Amendment!

by Johanna Markind

August 26, 2016 at 5:00 am

Source: Look Who Is Gutting the First Amendment!

“The [American Bar Association] wants to do exactly what the text calls for: limit lawyers’ expression of viewpoints that it disapproves of. … state courts and state bars should resist the pressure to adopt it.” — Eugene Volokh, UCLA law professor and Washington Post columnist.
The language of Resolution 109 is “so broad it could mean anything… a kind of a speech code that restricts perfectly acceptable speech… anything you say might offend someone and therefore you can be punished for it.” — Ilya Shapiro, Cato Institute.
The ABA declined to answer questions for this article, as did the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The ACLU, which calls itself “our nation’s guardian of liberty,” and touts itself as fighting for “your right… to speak out – for or against – anything at all,” has not issued any statements or press releases about the model rule revision.

The struggle between free speech and speech codes that are intended to prevent harassment and discrimination appears set to leap from college campuses to law offices around the United States.

On August 8, 2016, the American Bar Association (ABA) approved resolution 109, which curtails freedom of speech. The approved resolution amended its model rule of professional conduct 8.4. It prohibits

“conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law.”

The official comment explains:

“discrimination includes harmful verbal or physical conduct that manifests bias or prejudice towards others. Harassment includes sexual harassment and derogatory or demeaning verbal or physical conduct.”

The model rule is non-binding, but has potentially great influence on professional conduct rules that state courts require lawyers to follow. Should state courts adopt the change, lawyers found to violate it could be sanctioned and possibly disbarred. Because professional rules are legally binding on lawyers, the prospect that states may regulate “verbal conduct” implicates First Amendment concerns.

The ABA declined to answer questions for this article, as did the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The ACLU, which calls itself “our nation’s guardian of liberty,” and touts itself as fighting for “your right… to speak out – for or against – anything at all,” has not issued any statements or press releases about the model rule revision.

Ilya Shapiro, Cato Institute’s senior fellow in constitutional studies and editor-in-chief of Cato’s Supreme Court Review, views the ABA resolution as “a kind of a speech code that restricts perfectly acceptable speech. It’s like safe spaces on college campuses, where anything you say might offend someone and therefore you can be punished for it.”

Many American colleges, motivated at least partly by a desire to protect members of growing minority populations on campus, have adopted speech codes. The codes have arguably fostered a culture chilling free speech, enabling people who claim offense to shut down dissenting voices. The past two years, for example, have witnessed members of a student government impeached for wearing mini-sombreros to a tequila-themed party, a college master hounded into resigning for publicly disagreeing with a college’s cautionary note not to don offensive Halloween costumes, and a professor accused of racism and pressured into taking a sabbatical for supporting the state of Israel’s fight against a recognized terrorist organization.

Paul Kazaras, assistant executive director and staff counsel to the professional guidance commission of the Philadelphia Bar Association, agrees that college speech codes are problematic, but says:

“I think this [ABA resolution] is something fundamentally different. We are talking about a profession having ethical rules that already restrict lawyers, and what’s more, Pennsylvania’s Constitution gives its Supreme Court the authority to regulate the practice of law. There needs to be a way to make sure lawyers act ethically.”

Kazaras believes the change is needed to address bias that is still pervasive in some places, which has “no place in a professional world.” By adding an affirmative duty to lawyers’ ethical obligations, Kazaras says, junior lawyers and other law office employees have a needed tool to cope with special hardships they face in rectifying harassment. According to Kazaras,

“In most workplaces, if a senior manager harasses someone below him/her, the victim can complain through HR [human resources]. HR will then approach the manager and explain, ‘You can’t do this anymore.’ That doesn’t fit within law firm culture. It’s hard for a woman, person of color, person with disabilities, etc., to say, ‘You can’t treat me that way.'”

Laws already exist regulating the work environment, Kazaras notes, and adds, “I think compliance with the new ethics rule should in fact lower the instances of litigation by employees against law firms, and that is a good thing.”

Ilya Shapiro acknowledges that lawyers are already restricted by special rules — for instance, rules limiting lawyers’ speech by requiring them to be courteous to opposing counsel and parties — but believes the proposed model rule change “goes far beyond any existing ethical guidelines. I think it’s a much bigger step” than existing rules, says Shapiro, “like boiling a frog.”

Shapiro believes the revision also “goes far beyond existing employment laws barring harassment.” Workplace harassment, Shapiro explains, “is limited to conduct so offensive and pervasive that it creates a hostile work environment.” By contrast, the language of Resolution 109 is “so broad it could mean anything.” If someone believes he or she is being harassed, Shapiro argues, that person might be able to make a colorable claim under the model rule.

Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor who authors a Washington Post column on free speech issues, has written that the new model rule is significantly broader than existing workplace harassment laws, both in terms of what statements are covered, and in what settings they may be prohibited. For example, he fears that a lawyer presenting at a continuing legal education (CLE) program, who makes a statement critical of, say, homosexuals or Muslims in the course of the program, may thereby violate professional rules based on the new ABA guideline.

Kazaras, a longtime ethics consultant for the Philadelphia Bar Association, doubts statements made for the purpose of instruction during a CLE program could lead to liability.

Regardless of how that particular issue plays out, Volokh infers from the fact that the ABA moved ahead and adopted the new model rule, despite the many objections raised, “that the ABA wants to do exactly what the text calls for: limit lawyers’ expression of viewpoints that it disapproves of.” State courts and state bars, Volokh writes, “should resist the pressure to adopt it.”

Johanna Markind is an attorney who writes about public policy and criminal justice.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: ACLU, American Bar Association, Resolution 109, the First Amendment, UCLA, United States

Comments: Be the first to comment

Turkish army shells Kurds ‘refusing to retreat’ near Jarablus

August 26, 2016

Turkish army shells Kurds ‘refusing to retreat’ near Jarablus – state media Published time: 26 Aug, 2016 01:57

Source: Turkish army shells Kurds ‘refusing to retreat’ near Jarablus – state media — RT News

Turkish army tanks make their way towards the Syrian border town of Jarablus, Syria August 24, 2016. © Revolutionary Forces of Syria Media Office / Reuters

Turkish military have targeted US-backed Kurdish YPG militia with artillery fire south of the Syrian border town of Jarablus on Thursday, Anadolu state agency reported, citing a security source. The units allegedly refused to withdraw from the area despite warnings.

The group of YPG fighters were attacked with howitzers at about 6pm local time after they were spotted by Turkish intelligence advancing to Jarablus from the north of Manbij, the report said. Earlier, Washington assured Ankara that the US-backed Kurdish formations have been pulling out forces from the area to the east of the Euphrates River as demanded by Turkey.

READ MORE:Women burn burqas, men cut beards: Manbij celebrates liberation from ISIS (VIDEO, PHOTOS)

“Kerry [US State Secretary John Kerry] emphasized that the PYD/YPG forces have been withdrawing to the east of the Euphrates,” a Turkish security source was quoted by Hürriyet Daily News as saying following a telephone conversation between the US top diplomat and Turkey’s foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu on Thursday morning.

#BREAKING Turkish military hits YPG with artillery fire in north of Manbij as group advances ignoring warnings pic.twitter.com/uYi43LT1KB

— CNN Türk ENG (@CNNTURK_ENG) 25 августа 2016 г.

While on a visit to Ankara on August 24, US Vice President Joe Biden pledged to withdraw the support of American forces to Kurdish fighters battling terrorists in Syria if they did not comply with Turkey’s request to remain east of the river.

READ MORE:Turkey shells ISIS & Kurdish positions in Syria

“They cannot, will not and under no circumstances get American support if they do not keep that commitment. Period,” Biden said at a joint news conference with Turkish PM Binali Yildirim.

Read more

Turkey has been conducting Operation Euphrates Shield since Wednesday after its troops entered the borderline territory in the north of Syria with the focus on retaking Jarablus from the Islamic State (IS, ISIS/ISIL) terrorists, which has been occupying it since July 2013. Justifying the incursion, which had not been authorized by the Syrian government, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said it is aimed at stopping frequent cross-border attacks and repelling “terror groups which constantly threaten our country like Daesh [Arabic derogatory name for IS] and the PYD [the Democratic Union Party of Syria]”.

READ MORE:‘Blatant violation of sovereignty’: Damascus condemns Turkish operation in Jarablus

Meanwhile, Damascus slammed the offensive as “a blatant violation of sovereignty.”

The shelling follows a statement by YPG command saying that Kurdish militia under its control had left Manbij and returned to its bases, turning over the control over the city to the Manbij Military Council, according to Al-Masdar News.

On Wednesday, the YPG denounced the Turkish military offensive in Syria as “a hostile intervention,” refusing to cave in to pressure coming from Turkey.

“We won’t listen to the demands of Turkey or powers outside of Turkey. Turkey cannot impose its own agenda, its own interests on us. Our forces are there. We will not withdraw from west of the Euphrates,” YPG spokesman Redur Xelil said, as cited by Rudaw.

“Its main goal, more than ISIS, is the Kurds,” he pointed out.

Read more

At the moment, at least 20 Turkish tanks are taking part in operation inside Syria with more armored vehicles are expected to join the effort in the coming days as the Syrian rebels supported by Turkish forces are “cleansing” the city from jihadists.

The former IS stronghold of Manbij was freed by Kurdish-led SDF from jihadists just two weeks ago after months of intense fighting.

The Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) are the armed wing of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), close to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, which Ankara considers a terrorist organization. Turkey has been leading a military campaign against PKK insurgency in the country’s south-eastern Kurdish-populated regions, which has been criticized by rights groups for its brutality. Numerous reports have also suggested that Ankara bombed Kurdish targets inside Syria while allegedly sparing Islamist militants that the YPG have been in bitter battle with.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: Isis, Islam, Islamic State, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Kurds, Middle East, Middle East War, Russia, Syria, Terrorism, Turkey, USA, YPG

Comments: Be the first to comment

No. 2 U.S. Military Officer: Possible Our Adversaries Will Build a ‘Terminator’

August 26, 2016

No. 2 U.S. Military Officer: Possible Our Adversaries Will Build a ‘Terminator’, Washington Free Beacon, Morgan Chalfant, August 25, 2016

(Oh good. Something out of science fiction to worry about. — DM)

Joints Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Gen. Paul Selva testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee in Washington, Wednesday, Dec. 9, 2015. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Joints Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Gen. Paul Selva testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee in Washington, Wednesday, Dec. 9, 2015. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

The nation’s second-highest ranking military officer believes that our adversaries may try to build completely autonomous “Terminator”-like systems that can conduct lethal operations on the battlefield.

Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, vice chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday that he believes the United States needs to do “something” to punish actors who pursue such a weapon, though he admitted that international laws or conventions aimed at this would inevitably be violated.

“I don’t think it’s impossible that somebody will try to build a completely autonomous system, and I’m not talking about something like a cruise missile … or a mine that requires a human to target it and release it and it goes and finds its target,” Selva told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. when asked about such capabilities. “I’m talking about a wholly robotic system that decides whether or not, at the point of decision, it’s going to do lethal ops.”

Selva has previously dubbed debate about the implications of autonomous weapons the “‘Terminator’ conundrum,” referring to the science fiction films featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Selva said technologists have told Pentagon leaders that the capability could be developed in 10 years.

“This is about an entirely robotic system, completely autonomous, [that is] not dependent on the human decision,” Selva said. “We’re told by the technologists that we’re a decade or so away from that capability.”

The Air Force general said that the United States should look at international law as a way to stop state or non-state actors from building autonomous systems that can carry out lethal operations.

However, he cautioned that any measures barring the construction of such capabilities would likely be violated, given the violations of existing international prohibitions on chemical and biological weapons. Syrian President Bashar al Assad has used chemical weapons repeatedly against his own people. The Islamic State, the terrorist group controlling territory in Iraq and Syria and inspiring global attacks, also has leveraged chemical weapons in attacks, according to U.N. investigators.

“I think we do need to examine the bodies of law and convention that might constrain anyone in the world from building that kind of system. But, I’m wholly conscious of the fact that, even if we do that, there will be violators,” Selva explained. “In spite of the fact that we don’t approve of chemical or biological weapons, we know there are entities—both states and non-states—that continue to pursue that capability in our world. In spite of the fact that we say we won’t kill women and children, we know there are entities in this world—state and non-state—that don’t care.”

“I’m cautious when I say we have to have a set of conventions and rules [inaudible] that govern behavior in this space because it’s highly likely there will be violators,” Selva continued. “Until we understand what we want the limits to be, we won’t have a baseline from which to determine if someone is moving on the path of violating the convention that could create something like a ‘Terminator’ that has incredible amounts of complexity and no conscience.”

“I think we have to have something, I don’t know what the something is,” he added.

Selva has previously warned about the ethical and legal implications of developing lethal systems that rely on artificial intelligence.

“There are ethical implications, there are implications for the laws of war. There are implications for what I call ‘The Terminator’ conundrum: What happens when that thing can inflict mortal harm and is empowered by artificial intelligence?” Selva said in January. “How are we going to know what is in the vehicle’s mind, presuming for the moment that we are capable of creating a vehicle with a mind?”

Selva spoke about the future of joint capabilities and the need for reform and innovation at the Defense Department, especially in the technological sphere. He said the United States is in a period of “great power competition,” highlighting challenges from Russia and China.

Selva also said that the United States faces challenges from Iran and North Korea because of their “aspirations to become nuclear powers.” Selva listed combatting “violent extremism” as an additional challenge.

“I won’t put a single label on it because we have watched violent extremism over the course of the last couple of decades morph in ways that we have not anticipated,” Selva said. “While we think we understand the dynamics ofsome variables of violent extremism today, that does not give us a crystal clear view of where it might go.”

Selva said emerging competitors such as Russia and China have not completely matched America in military capability but have come “pretty close,” challenging U.S. forces to find new ways to counter them.

“What we face over the next couple of decades is several very imaginative competitors who have actually looked at what we have done over the last two decades, reflected it back upon us, and challenged us with some of the very same techniques that we are challenging them with. That becomes very difficult to counter,” Selva said.

“That’s the environment we find ourselves in: Great power competition with powers who are not necessary our equal but are pretty close, but have picked asymmetric approaches strategically and operationally that seriously challenge us, and so we have to think differently about this problem,” he said.

Categories: international law, Military technology, Rogue nations, Science fiction
Tags: International Law, Military technology, Rogue nations, Science fiction

Comments: 3 Comments

Court orders State to hand over new Clinton emails by Sept. 13

August 26, 2016

Court orders State to hand over new Clinton emails by Sept. 13, Washington Examiner, Anna Giaritelli, August 25, 2016

A federal court has ordered the State Department to review and turn over emails from a new batch of communications that Hillary Clinton sent during her time as secretary of state by Sept. 13, but which she deleted, Judicial Watch announced Thursday afternoon

“The State Department shall search the material, determine whether any responsive records exist, and complete its first production of non-exempt records, to the extent any exist, by September 13, 2016,” the court ruled.

Judicial Watch said the department has admitted in a court filing that some of the emails that Clinton had deleted included some “Benghazi-related documents.”

That case involves emails between Clinton and the White House in the week after the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans.

Judicial Watch is also pursuing another case that involves a separate batch of Clinton emails. Those emails will start being delivered to the group on Sept. 30, and the court said Thursday that it would hold a hearing on Aug. 30 on whether State should make it known sooner how many documents are involved.

Categories: Benghazi, Clinton e-mails, Department of State, Hillary Clinton, Judicial Watch, U.S. courts
Tags: Benghazi, Clinton e-mails, Department of State, Judicial Watch, U.S. courts

Comments: Be the first to comment

What’s the Plan for Winning the War?

August 25, 2016

What’s the Plan for Winning the War?, Counter Jihad, August 25, 2016

Who is even thinking about how to win the war? Will the legacy of the Obama administration be a shattered NATO, a Turkey drawn into Russia’s orbit, an Iranian hegemony over the northern Middle East, and a resurgent Russia? It certainly looks to be shaping up that way. Russia is playing chess while the US is playing whack-a-mole. The absence of a coherent governing strategy is glaring.

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

Michael Ledeen makes a clever observation:

Everyone’s talking about “ransom,” but it’s virtually impossible to find anyone who’s trying to figure out how to win the world war we’re facing. The two keystones of the enemy alliance are Iran and Russia, and the Obama administration, as always, has no will to resist their sorties, whether the Russians’ menacing moves against Ukraine, or the Iranians’ moves against us.

The moves are on the chessboard, sometimes kinetic and sometimes psychological warfare. Like a chess game, we are in the early stages in which maneuver establishes the array of forces that will govern the rest of the game. Russia’s deployment of air and naval forces to Syria stole a march on the Obama administration. Its swaying of Turkey, which last year was downing Russian aircraft, is stealing another. Its deployment of bombers and advanced strike aircraft to Iran is another. That last appears to be in a state of renegotiation, as Ledeen notes, but that too is probably for show. The Iranians have too much to gain in terms of security for their nuclear program, at least until they’ve had time to build their own air force.

Iran is making strategic moves as well. Ledeen notes the “Shi’ite Freedom Army,” a kind of Iranian Foreign Legion that intends to field five divisions of between twenty and twenty-five thousand men each. Overall command will belong to Quds Force commander Qassem Suliemani, currently a major figure in the assault on Mosul, having recovered from his injury in Syria commanding Iranian-backed militia in the war there. The fact of his freedom of movement is itself a Russian-Iranian demonstration that they will not be governed by international law: Suliemani is under international travel bans for his assassination plot against world diplomats, but was received in Moscow and now travels freely throughout the northern Middle East.

Turkey, meanwhile, has been effectively cut off by Iran’s and Russia’s success in the opening game of this global chess match. As late as the Ottoman Empire, the Turks looked south through Iran and Iraq to power bases as far away as Arabia. Now the Ayatollahs are going to control a crescent of territory from Afghanistan’s borders to the Levant, leaving the Turks locked out. One might have expected the Turks to respond by doubling their sense of connection to Europe and NATO. Instead, the purge following the alleged coup attempt is cementing an Islamist control that leaves the Turks looking toward a world from which they are largely separated by the power of this new Russian-Iranian alliance. The Turks seem to be drifting toward joining that alliance because being a part of that alliance will preserve their ties to the Islamic world.

For now, the Obama administration seems blind to the fact that these moves are closing off America’s position in the Middle East. This is not a new policy. Eli Lake reports that the Obama administration told the CIA to sever its ties to Iranian opposition groups in order to avoid giving aid to the Green revolution. Their negotiation of last year’s disastrous “Iran deal” has led to Iran testing new ballistic missiles and receiving major arms shipments from Russia. Yet while all these moves keep being made around them, the Obama administration proceeds as if this were still just an attempt to crush the Islamic State (ISIS). The commander of the XVIIIth Airborne Corps has been given a task that amounts to helping the Iranians win. Our incoherent policy has left us on both sides in Syria. Our only real ally in the conflict, the Kurds, stand abandoned by America.

Who is even thinking about how to win the war? Will the legacy of the Obama administration be a shattered NATO, a Turkey drawn into Russia’s orbit, an Iranian hegemony over the northern Middle East, and a resurgent Russia? It certainly looks to be shaping up that way. Russia is playing chess while the US is playing whack-a-mole. The absence of a coherent governing strategy is glaring.

Categories: Europe, Foreign policy, Iran, Islam, Islamic terrorism, Middle East, national security, NATO, Obama, Obama and terrorism, Putin, Russia, Syria, Turkey
Tags: Europe, Foreign Policy, Iran, Islam, Islamic terrorism, Middle East, national security, Nato, Obama, Obama and terrorism, Putin, Russia, Syria, Turkey

Comments: Be the first to comment

Obama Demands UN Do Something Over Syria’s Violation of His Red Line

August 25, 2016

Obama Demands UN Do Something Over Syria’s Violation of His Red Line, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, August 25, 2016

mission-accomplished_7

I could call on the fairies. Or the UN.

Both are equally likely to do anything. Obama knows that. This is why his theatrical outrage is such a ridiculous joke.

The US has urged “strong and swift action” after a UN investigation concluded that Syria used chemical weapons against its own people.

The year-long inquiry found the government used chlorine gas in attacks in Idlib province in 2014 and 2015.

The US ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, said the use of chemical weapons was “barbaric” and called for “all states to support strong and swift action”.

Yes, please do something since we made it clear that we don’t want to. But wait, it’s all part of a brilliant collective plan.

These leaks and statements are part of an administration effort to put pressure on President Bashar Assad and his Russian backers before an August 30 meeting by the UN Security Council to look at the issue of chemical weapons in Syria, a U.S. intelligence official told The Daily Beast.

Why now? According to this official, the answer goes back to 2014, when the Assad regime was accused of repeated chlorine attacks, and the world shrugged its shoulders.

“We weren’t getting enough political oomph when the chlorine attacks first came to light. So we figured the best option was to work through the slow UN process, get the Russians to a place where they’re cornered diplomatically,” the intelligence official said.

Plus, the official added, finger pointing by the United States alone wouldn’t be nearly as effective as collective action.

Yes, because you guys are really good at cornering Russia diplomatically. This way we pass it to the UN. The UN does nothing. Obama shrugs. Mission accomplished.

Categories: Assad, Obama and Syria, Obama's red lines, Syria - chemical weapons, United Nations
Tags: Assad, Obama and Syria, Obama's red lines, Syria - chemical weapons, United Nations

Comments: Be the first to comment

White House Echo Chamber Architect to Keynote Pro-Iran Lobby Conference

August 25, 2016

White House Echo Chamber Architect to Keynote Pro-Iran Lobby Conference, Washington Free Beacon, Adam Kredo, August 25, 2016

Ben Rhodes (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)

The Sept. 25 event also is being co-sponsored by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, a philanthropic group that has been criticized for funding anti-Israel activities and organizations that support boycotts of the Jewish state. The fund bankrolls some of the leading backers of the global BDS movement against Israel, which has raised concerns among some that the administration is breaking its promises to oppose this movement.

The NIAC event is being viewed as another sign that the White House is seeking to boost these organizations in return for their efforts to push the nuclear deal and support the pro-Iran “echo chamber.”

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

The senior White House official who bragged about creating a pro-Iran “echo chamber” to mislead Americans about last summer’s nuclear agreement is scheduled to keynote a conference sponsored by an organization that has long been accused of acting as a pro-Tehran lobbying front.

Ben Rhodes, a top national security adviser to President Obama, is slated to be the keynote speaker at an upcoming gathering hosted by the National Iranian American Council, or NIAC, which played a key role in bolstering the nuclear agreement and has long operated under suspicion that it acts as Tehran’s lobbying shop.

NIAC

Rhodes has been engulfed in a growing scandal following the revelation that he enlisted a roster of journalists and experts to spin the public in favor of the deal.

Outside organizations such as NIAC and the Ploughshares Fund, which is co-sponsoring the upcoming conference, were cited as key parts of the White House’s effort to mislead the public about the deal.

The Sept. 25 event also is being co-sponsored by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, a philanthropic group that has been criticized for funding anti-Israel activities and organizations that support boycotts of the Jewish state. The fund bankrolls some of the leading backers of the global BDS movement against Israel, which has raised concerns among some that the administration is breaking its promises to oppose this movement.

The NIAC event is being viewed as another sign that the White House is seeking to boost these organizations in return for their efforts to push the nuclear deal and support the pro-Iran “echo chamber.”

“Pro-Iran lobbies like NIAC were helpful to Ben Rhodes when he created his echo chamber to sell the Iran nuclear deal and the Iran money-for-hostages deal,” said one senior foreign policy consultant who has worked with Congress on the Iran deal. “It’s only fair that Rhodes would return the favor by keynoting NIAC’s conference. It’s not clear what he’ll talk about more: Iran developing its nuclear program, Iran expanding across the region, or Iran seizing more American hostages including those with close links to NIAC itself.”

The NIAC conference also will be attended by Rep. Jared Huffman (D., Calif.), an Iran deal backer, according to an invitation for the event circulated by NIAC.

NIAC makes note of Rhodes’ efforts to deepen diplomacy with the Islamic Republic in its invitation.

The event’s top billed sponsors include Ploughshares and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

Ploughshares, a longtime funder of pro-Iran organizations and media outlets, has found itself on defense in recent months following disclosure of its role in Rhodes’ “echo chamber.”

Ploughshares funded writers and organizations in order to create a network of Iran deal “validators” who could influence public opinion at the White House’s behest.

Most recently, the Washington Free Beacon disclosed that a Washington Post contributor who touted the administration’s $400 million payment to Iran had been funded by Ploughshares. Neither the Post nor the writer disclosed this fact.

Ploughshares also moved money to National Public Radio to influence its coverage of the Iran deal.

Categories: BDS, Ben Rhodes, Iran scam, Israel, National Iranian American Council, Obama and Iran, Obama and Israel
Tags: BDS, Ben Rhodes, Iran Scam, Israel, National Iranian American Council, Obama and Iran, Obama and Israel

Comments: Be the first to comment

Donald Trump: Hillary Clinton Attacking ‘Millions of Decent Americans’ with Racism Charge

August 25, 2016

Donald Trump: Hillary Clinton Attacking ‘Millions of Decent Americans’ with Racism Charge, Breitbart, Alex Swoyer, August 25, 2016

(Please see also, Donald Trump is Right: Hillary Clinton Is a Bigot. Here Are 10 Examples.– DM)

Trump-New-Hampshire-AP-640x480

Donald Trump addressed Hillary Clinton’s upcoming remarks on the “alt-right” movement during his campaign rally in New Hampshire on Thursday, saying it’s “the oldest play in the Democratic playbook” and that although Democrats always return to that same well, “the well has run dry.”

Trump stated:

The news reports are that Hillary Clinton is going to try to accuse this campaign, and the millions of decent Americans who support this campaign, of being racists. It’s the oldest play in the Democratic playbook. When Democratic policies fail, they are left with only this one tired argument. It’s the last refuge of the discredited politician. They keep going back to this same well, but the well has run dry.

“She’s attacking all of the decent people — of all backgrounds — that support this incredible, once in a life-time movement,” he added, saying she isn’t just attacking him.

Trump called on the voters — including African Americans and Hispanics — who have been disenfranchised by the Democratic Party to “reject the politicians who have failed them and vote for change.”

The Republican nominee said that four in 10 African American children are living in poverty and more than 58 percent of black youth aren’t working. “I’m for change. She doesn’t want change.”

“Every policy Hillary Clinton supports is a policy that has failed and betrayed communities of color in this country. But she just doesn’t care – she’s too busy raking in cash from the people rigging the system,” Trump charged.

Trump railed against Clinton’s controversial relationship between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation during her time as secretary of state, which some suggest shows a pay-for-play scheme, declaring that “It’s time the Clintons were held accountable for their inappropriate conduct.”

The crowd chanted, “Lock her up! Lock her up!” a number of times during the rally.

The New Yorker said it’s important to vote for him on Nov. 8 and not to allow Clinton to be elected as President of the United States. “No risk to America was too great.”

“We must vote on November 8th to keep the American government from being sold to the highest bidder,” he stressed. “Vote to save your country.”

Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton Foundation, Department of State, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Racism, Trump supporters
Tags: Clinton Foundation, Dept. of State, Donald Trump, Racism, Trump supporters

Comments: Be the first to comment

Archives