Archive for October 2016

Europe’s “Good Terrorists”: Because They Might Destroy Israel?

October 5, 2016

Europe’s “Good Terrorists”: Because They Might Destroy Israel?

by Khaled Abu Toameh

October 5, 2016 at 5:00 am

Source: Europe’s “Good Terrorists”: Because They Might Destroy Israel?

 

  • Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri would like the Europeans to understand that they need not worry about terrorism by the Islamist movement because the attacks will be directed only against Israel.
  • The European Court of Justice (EJC) is sending the message to Hamas that Europeans see no problem with Hamas’s desire to destroy Israel and continue to launch terrorist attacks against Jews. This message also undermines those Palestinians who still believe in a peace with Israel.
  • The EJC recommendation to remove Hamas from the EU’s terrorism blacklist comes at a time when countries such as Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and even Saudi Arabia, as well as the Palestinian Authority, are doing their utmost to weaken Hamas.
  • Appeasing terrorists is a dangerous game: it has already backfired on its foolhardy players and will continue to do so. This is exactly how Muslims conquered Iran, Turkey, North Africa and much of Europe, including Hungary, Greece, Poland, Romania, and the Balkans — countries that still recall a real “occupation,” an Islamist one, and abundantly want none of it.
  • The EU and the ECJ need to be stopped before they do any more harm to Palestinians, Christians and Jews — or to Europe.

Once again, the Europeans seem to be in Alice’s Wonderland when they consider Palestinian affairs in particular and the Middle East in general. The renewed attempt by the European Union to remove the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas from its terrorism list is a case in point.

Recently, an advisor to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) recommended that Hamas be removed from the EU’s terrorism blacklist. In 2014, the EU’s second-highest court ruled that Hamas should be taken off the list on “technical” grounds. It argued that Hamas’s listing was not based on evidence, but on “factual imputations derived from the press and the internet.”

However, the European Council then appealed this judgement, arguing that Hamas should remain on the terrorism blacklist, citing a 2001 decision by the UK and the US that designated both Hamas and the Tamil Tigers as terrorist groups. But the recent opinion by the ECJ advisor dismisses this argument. “The council cannot rely on facts and evidence found in press articles and information from the internet,” Advocate General Eleanor Sharpton said. She explained that the council could not rely on terrorist listings by countries (the UK and US) outside the EU.

This latest highly dangerous European attempt to strike Hamas from the terrorism blacklist will, as the EU knows perfectly well, only serve further to embolden the Islamist movement to replace Israel with an Islamic empire.

Removing Hamas from the terrorism list would obviously be seen as a severe blow to Hamas’s rivals in the Western-backed and funded Palestinian Authority (PA), and to the efforts to revive any peace process between the Palestinians and Israel.

As this is not the EU’s first attempt to do this, it is hard not to conclude what many Palestinians have suspected all along: that the EU and its affiliates do not care if the Palestinians and others in the area are overrun by Hamas terrorists and are forced to live under the rule of despotic Islamist militants.

The recent opinion by the European court advisor lightheartedly ignores Hamas’s own statements concerning its true intentions and continued preparations for war against Israel. It is hard not to conclude that this is what the EU secretly wants — perhaps for Muslim voters, who brought to power France’s President François Hollande, perhaps in the hope of buying off terrorists so that they avoid further attacks in Europe, perhaps to continue good business deals with Arab and Muslim countries, and, of course, perhaps all of the above.

It came as no surprise, therefore, that Hamas was quick to “welcome” the opinion of the European Court advisor to whitewash and legitimize the Islamist terror movement. “Hamas considers the recommendation a first step towards removing the sin committed by the European Union towards the Palestinian people when it demonstrated bias in favor of Israel by placing Hamas on the terrorism list,” said Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri, who welcomed the opinion and called on the Europeans to abide by it. Hamas, he added, has always been keen on openness towards the West and on building strong humanitarian and political relations with it. Israel is the only enemy of Hamas, Abu Zuhri stressed.

In other words, Abu Zuhri would like the Europeans to understand that they need not worry about terrorism by the Islamist movement because the attacks will be directed only against Israel. Hamas wants “openness” and “strong” ties with the Europeans because it believes that this will advance its goal of implementing its charter, which calls for the elimination of Israel. This is how Hamas understands the renewed bid to have it removed from the EU’s terrorism blacklist. And it is improbable that the EU, which for decades has sought “good relations” between the two sides of the Mediterranean, does not understand it that way, too.

Even more improbable is that some Europeans believe that Hamas should not be on the terrorism only on the basis of press articles and information on the internet — as if what is being said about Hamas and its goals are rumors or unsubstantiated charges that need to be verified, and for which there is no basis.

What of Hamas’s own charter, which calls for Jihad (holy war) against Israel. “There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad,” the charter states. It goes on to say that the

“liberation of that land (Palestine) is an individual duty binding on all Muslims everywhere. In order to face the usurpation of Palestine by the Jews, we have no escape from raising the banner of Jihad…We must spread the spirit of Jihad among the (Islamic) Umma, clash with the enemies and join the ranks of the Jihad fighters. The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Wakf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it.”

Okay, one might argue, so the Europeans will not take seriously the Hamas covenant. Yet what does the ECJ make of the incessant rhetoric of Hamas?

Here is what Fathi Hammad, a senior Hamas official in the Gaza Strip, had to say after the recommendation: “Resistance is the only way to liberate Palestine from the [Mediterranean] sea to the [Jordan] river.” Praising the recent wave of Palestinian knife and car-ramming attacks on Israelis, Hammad called on Palestinians to rise against any peace process with Israel. “The path of negotiations has dissipated the Palestinian cause,” he added.

In a statement marking the first anniversary of the anti-Israel attacks, which is being referred to by many Palestinians as the “Jerusalem Intifada,” Hamas said this week that the wave of terrorism will not stop “until the occupation is driven out of Jerusalem, the West Bank and all Palestine.” Reiterating its refusal to recognize the “Zionist Entity’s” right to exist, Hamas said that the Palestinians maintain the right to “resistance in all its forms.”

Let us translate that for a moment: When Hamas talks about “resistance in all its forms,” it is referring to killing Jews with suicide bombings, rockets, knives and vehicles. As far as Hamas is concerned, Palestinians are entitled to use all these methods to kill as many Jews as possible and drive them out, to “liberate all of Palestine.” Notably, this statement was issued after, not before, the recent recommendation by the European court advisor to remove Hamas from the terrorism list. This is far from simply another “press article” or “rumor” published on the internet; this is an official statement released by the Hamas leadership.

Thousands of armed Hamas troops showed off their military hardware at a Dec. 14, 2014 parade in Gaza, marking the organization’s 27th anniversary. (Image source: PressTV video screenshot)

To its credit, and despite the clearly genocidal ECJ recommendation, Hamas has been utterly transparent concerning its intentions. In fact, Hamas has never hidden its desire to destroy Israel and prevent any peace process between Palestinians and Israelis. This position and strategy has not changed since the establishment of the Islamist movement nearly thirty years ago. And if the officials of the EU and the ECJ do not know that, they should be replaced.

Further evidence of Hamas’s intentions and policies was provided by another leader of the movement, Mahmoud Zahar, who assured supporters in the Gaza Strip last week that Hamas will never recognize Israel’s right to exist. “We will not give up one inch of the land of Palestine to the Israeli entity,” Zahar declared. He then praised Palestinians for using “stones and knives” to attack Jews.

These are only some of the recent statements by Hamas leaders and spokesmen that leave no room for doubt as to the movement’s intentions to continue using terrorism as a means to destroy Israel. Perhaps EU officials might go to the numerous Hamas websites and read what is being said there by the movement’s leaders. The words speak for themselves.

Hamas’s threats do not stop at rhetoric. Hamas’s current actions also attest to its goals. Hamas and other terror groups openly continue to dig tunnels that will be used to attack Israel.

Only days after the ECJ recommendation was published, another Palestinian was killed while working in a tunnel. He was identified as 30-year-old Ahmed As’ad. Other men were wounded in the incident, in a tunnel that was supposed to serve Hamas and other terrorist groups to attack Israel.

Meanwhile, last week, in the context of these preparations, the terror group Al-Naser Salah Eddin Brigades unveiled a new rocket called Koka 70 (named after one of its leaders, Abu Yusef Koka).

The European recommendation to remove Hamas from the terrorism blacklist comes at a time when Hamas and other groups are not only talking about attacks, but also actively preparing to launch new rockets and infiltrate Israel via attack tunnels. These are not unverified press reports, but facts — facts that fly in the face of the European whitewashing and legitimizing of this terrorist group.

The ECJ is sending the message to Hamas that the Europeans see no problem with Hamas’s desire to destroy Israel and continue to launch terrorist attacks against Jews. This message also undermines those Palestinians who still believe in a peace with Israel. Moreover, the recommendation comes at a time when countries such as Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and even Saudi Arabia, as well as the Palestinian Authority, are doing their utmost to weaken Hamas.

Those who embolden Hamas also strengthen ISIS, Islamic Jihad and the Muslim Brotherhood, not only in the Middle East, but also in Europe. Appeasing terrorists is a dangerous game: it has already backfired on its foolhardy players and will continue to do so, not less, but more. This is exactly how Muslims conquered Iran, Turkey, North Africa, the Crimea and much of Europe including Hungary, Greece, Poland, Romania, and the Balkans — countries that still recall a real “occupation,” an Islamist one, all too well, and abundantly want none of it.

The Ottoman Empire at its largest size. (Image source: Wikimedia Commons/Mevlüt Kılıç)

The EU and the ECJ need to be stopped before they do any more harm to Palestinians, Christians and Jews — or to Europe.

Obama Administration Again Deliberates Air Strikes on Assad

October 5, 2016

Obama Administration Again Deliberates Air Strikes on Assad Regime President unlikely to accept military action in Syria

BY:
October 4, 2016 4:46 pm

Source: Obama Administration Again Deliberates Air Strikes on Assad

The Obama administration is again considering air strikes against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al Assad following the failure of a ceasefire deal brokered by the U.S. and Russia.

Top national security officials are meeting with senior administration officials Wednesday to address the ongoing crisis in the rebel-held city of Aleppo. President Obama is expected to reject proposed airstrikes, according to the Washington Post.

Officials from the State Department, CIA, and Joint Chiefs of Staff met last week at the White House to discuss limited military strikes in Syria against the regime to punish Assad for violating the latest ceasefire and continuing to commit war crimes against his people.

Administration officials also hope to pressure Assad into diplomatic talks aimed at ending the country’s civil war, now in its sixth year.

The administration is considering a number of options that include bombing Syrian air force runways, an official participating in the discussions told the Post. The official said the White House would work around its long-standing refusal to strike the Assad regime without a U.N. Security Council resolution by covertly conducting the strikes.

“There’s an increased mood in support of kinetic actions against the regime,” one senior administration official told the Post.

Still, Obama remains unlikely to approve military action against the regime.

The U.S. on Monday suspended bilateral engagement with Russia on negotiating a diplomatic resolution in Syria. Secretary of State John Kerry had worked to restore a week-long ceasefire with Moscow, but talks ultimately fell through given Russia’s continued assault on Aleppo along with Syrian forces.

Iraq demands that Turkey pull its ‘occupying’ troops out of military base near Mosul

October 5, 2016

Iraq demands that Turkey pull its ‘occupying’ troops out of military base near Mosul Published time:

5 Oct, 2016 07:52 Edited time: 5 Oct, 2016 10:07

Source: Iraq demands that Turkey pull its ‘occupying’ troops out of military base near Mosul — RT News

© Asmaa Waguih / Reuters

Outraged by Ankara’s decision to extend the stationing of its troops in northern Iraq, 30 kilometers from Mosul, Iraqi MPs have called on the government to review its relations with Turkey and lodge a complaint against the “occupation” with the UNSC.

On Tuesday, the majority of Iraqi legislators spoke out against the Turkish parliament’s decision to prolong the stationing of about 150 Turkish soldiers and some 25 tanks at the Bashiqa military camp in Iraq’s northern Nineveh Province, which is located at the forefront of the battle with Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL).

Read more

U.S soldiers walk on a bridge with in the town of Gwer northern Iraq © Azad Lashkari

In a written statement, the MPs decried the decision, appealing to the country’s prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, to summon the Turkish ambassador and file a complaint with the United Nations Security Council that would designate Turkey’s military contingent as an “occupying” force, according to Rudaw news agency.

On Saturday, the Turkish parliament green lighted the extension of the Turkish military’s engagement in both Iraq and Syria.

Since 2014, Turkish servicemen have provided training and support to Kurdish Peshmerga units and Sunni militia known as Hashd al-Watani forces at the camp, subject to agreement with the Iraqi government. However, on December 4 of last year, Turkey beefed up its military presence at the camp, allegedly to protect its advisers. The move infuriated Bagdad, which insisted that Turkey had not asked for permission from the Iraqi government to deploy additional troops, thus violating its sovereignty.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan refused to acknowledge this at that time, claiming that Turkey was acting within the scope of the previous agreement.

“Turkish soldiers are in Basheeqa camp at the request of Haider al-Abadi in 2014. Now I am asking why he has been silent since 2014,” Erdogan said in December, disputing claims that Turkey was intervening in Iraq.

Read more

© Alaa Al-Marjani

Speaking in the wake of the vote, Abadi publicly called for Turkey’s troops to immediately leave its territory, saying that “the Turkish insistence on their presence inside Iraqi territories has no justification.”

The prime-minister told journalists on Tuesday that Iraq has managed to enlist the support of the ‘international community,’ as well as the US-led international coalition, in its bid to remove the Turkish military from its territory.

While Iraq doesn’t want to be dragged into a military conflict with Turkey, it finds the actions of its government “not acceptable by any standard,” he added.

Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmus stressed on Wednesday that Turkey’s military presence in the Bashiqa camp is intended solely to provide stability and train the local forces, and that Ankara does not aim to become an occupying force.

Turkey will not allow this to become a matter of debate,” he told reporters as cited by Reuters.

Both Turkey and Iraq summoned each other’s ambassadors on Wednesday to discuss the growing rift between the two states.

Turkey’s foreign ministry also condemned the vote, the Daily Sabah reported.

READ MORE:French fighter jets take off on mission against ISIS stronghold in Mosul, Iraq

Back in December, Iraq appealed to NATO to force Turkey to withdraw its forces, but the alliance found Ankara to be in compliance with the terms of the training agreement.

Iraq’s largest city, Mosul, fell into the hands of Islamic State in 2014, and Iraqi forces are currently preparing an offensive to retake the terrorist stronghold, aided by US-led anti-terrorism coalition.

If the operation is successful, Iraq wants to “ensure Turkish troops do not exploit the power vacuum after achieving victory against Islamic State in Mosul,” Abadi has stressed.

IDF hits targets in northern Gaza in response to rocket strike

October 5, 2016

IDF hits targets in northern Gaza in response to rocket strike After projectile lands on a Sderot street, Israeli tanks reportedly fire on Hamas sites in Beit Hanoun

By Judah Ari Gross October 5, 2016, 11:59 am

Source: IDF hits targets in northern Gaza in response to rocket strike | The Times of Israel

A rocket launched from the Gaza Strip strikes a road in the southern city of Sderot on October 5, 2016. (Israel Police)

Israeli tanks fired on Hamas targets in the northern Gaza Strip on Wednesday in response to a rocket that landed in southern Israel earlier in the day, the army said.

According to Palestinian reports, the IDF tanks struck sites in Beit Hanoun, on the northeastern corner of the coastal enclave. The army would not immediately confirm those reports to The Times of Israel.

There were no immediate reports of Palestinian injuries.

The rocket, which had been fired from the Gaza Strip, struck a street in the city of Sderot — a few miles from Beit Hanoun — just before 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, police said, causing damage and sending three people to the hospital suffering from anxiety attacks.

The Islamic State-affiliated Ahfad al-Sahaba-Aknaf Bayt al-Maqdis terrorist group took responsibility for the rocket launch in statements released in both Arabic and Hebrew.

“Oh you cowardly Jews: You don’t have safety in our land. [Former defense minister Moshe] Ya’alon, the failure at giving security. [Defense Minister Avigdor] Liberman to fail will be a certainty,” the Salafist group said in its statement, in poorly translated Hebrew.

The attack against Israel was apparently a response to the Strip’s Hamas rulers arresting several members of the Salafist organization, according to the group’s statement.

Though the Salafist group took responsibility for the attack, Israel has said it holds Hamas responsible for any attacks emanating from Gaza and routinely responds to such launches with strikes inside the Palestinian territory.

“We can’t go after every little group in Gaza with a couple of dozen members that goes out one night and fires a rocket,” a senior officer in the IDF’s Southern Command told reporters last month.

Ahfad al-Sahaba-Aknaf Bayt al-Maqdis released a similar statement last month, after a failed attempt to launch a rocket at southern Israel on the first day of school. The group also claimed responsibility for a rocket attack that hit Sderot
in August, landing between two houses in the southern Israeli city.

In Wednesday morning’s rocket attack, three people in Sderot “suffered anxiety attacks” and were treated by medical teams, but no one was physically hurt by the attack, according to the Magen David Adom medical service.

The three — including a 15-year-old girl and 60-year-old man — were taken to Ashkelon’s Barzilai Medical Center for further care, MDA paramedics said.

The rocket alert siren was activated at approximately 10:20 a.m. and was heard in Sderot, Nir Am, Ivim and Gevim.

A few minutes later, Israel Police officers located the rocket in Sderot. The street where it landed was damaged in the attack, as were several nearby cars and homes.

Police sappers were called to the scene, and the area was closed off to pedestrians and traffic, police said.


Police sappers dig out piece of a rocket launched from the Gaza Strip that struck a road in the southern city of Sderot on October 5, 2016.

Last month, a mortar shell was launched from the Gaza Strip and landed in a field in southern Israel, causing neither injury nor damage, the army said. The projectile hit an empty field in the Eshkol region, next to the southern Strip, according to a statement from the Israel Defense Forces.

Obama DOJ drops charges against alleged provider of Libyan weapons

October 5, 2016

Obama DOJ drops charges against alleged provider of Libyan weapons, Politico and , October 4, 2016

A Turi associate asserted that the government dropped the case because the proceedings could have embarrassed Clinton and President Barack Obama by calling attention to the reported role of their administration in supplying weapons that fell into the hands of Islamic extremist militants.

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

The Obama administration is moving to dismiss charges against an arms dealer it had accused of selling weapons that were destined for Libyan rebels.

Lawyers for the Justice Department on Monday filed a motion in federal court in Phoenix to drop the case against the arms dealer, an American named Marc Turi, whose lawyers also signed the motion.

The deal averts a trial that threatened to cast additional scrutiny on Hillary Clinton’s private emails as Secretary of State, and to expose reported Central Intelligence Agency attempts to arm rebels fighting Libyan leader Moammar Qadhafi.

Government lawyers were facing a Wednesday deadline to produce documents to Turi’s legal team, and the trial was officially set to begin on Election Day, although it likely would have been delayed by protracted disputes about classified information in the case.

A Turi associate asserted that the government dropped the case because the proceedings could have embarrassed Clinton and President Barack Obama by calling attention to the reported role of their administration in supplying weapons that fell into the hands of Islamic extremist militants.

“They don’t want this stuff to come out because it will look really bad for Obama and Clinton just before the election,” said the associate.

In the dismissal motion, prosecutors say “discovery rulings” from U.S. District Court Judge David Campbell contributed to the decision to drop the case. The joint motion asks the judge to accept a confidential agreement to resolve the case through a civil settlement between the State Department and the arms broker.

“Our position from the outset has been that this case never should have been brought and we’re glad it’s over,” said Jean-Jacques Cabou, a Perkins Coie partner serving as court-appointed defense counsel in the case. “Mr Turi didn’t break the law….We’re very glad the charges are being dismissed.”

Under the deal, Turi admits no guilt in the transactions he participated in, but he agreed to refrain from U.S.-regulated arms dealing for four years. A $200,000 civil penalty will be waived if Turi abides by the agreement.

A State Department official confirmed the outlines of the agreement.

“Mr. Turi cooperated with the Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls in its review and proposed administrative settlement of the alleged violations,” said the official, who asked not be named. “Based on a compliance review, DDTC alleged that Mr. Turi…engaged in brokering activities for the proposed transfer of defense articles to Libya, a proscribed destination under [arms trade regulations,] despite the Department’s denial of…requests for the required prior approval of such activities.”

Turi adviser Robert Stryk of the government relations and consulting firm SPG accused the government of trying to scapegoat Turi to cover up Clinton’s mishandling of Libya.

“The U.S. government spent millions of dollars, went all over the world to bankrupt him, and destroyed his life — all to protect Hillary Clinton’s crimes,” he said, alluding to the deadly Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Republicans hold Clinton responsible for mishandling the circumstances around that attack. And Stryk said that Turi was now weighing book and movie deals to tell his story, and to weigh in on the Benghazi attack.

Representatives of the Justice Department, the White House and Clinton’s presidential campaign either declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment on the case or the settlement.

Turi was indicted in 2014 on four felony counts: two of arms dealing in violation of the Arms Export Control Act and two of lying to the State Department in official applications. The charges accused Turi of claiming that the weapons involved were destined for Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, when the arms were actually intended to reach Libya.

Turi’s lawyers argued that the shipments were part of a U.S. government-authorized effort to arm Libyan rebels.

It’s unclear if any of the weapons made it to Libya, and there’s no evidence linking weapons provided by the U.S. government to the Benghazi attacks.

“The proposal did not result in an actual transfer of defense articles to Libya,” the State Department official told POLITICO on Tuesday.

But questions about U.S. efforts to arm Libyan rebels have been mounting, since weapons have reportedly made their way from Libya to Syria, where a civil war is raging between the Syrian Government and ISIL-aligned fighters.

During 2013 Senate hearings on the 2012 Benghazi attack, Clinton, under questioning from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), said she had no knowledge of weapons moving from Libya into Turkey.

Wikileaks head Julian Assange in July suggested that he had emails proving that Clinton “pushed” the “flows” of weapons “going over to Syria.”

Additionally, Turi’s case had delved into emails sent to and from the controversial private account that Clinton used as Secretary of State, which the defense planned to harness at any trial.

At a court hearing in 2015, Cabou said emails between Clinton and her top aides indicated that efforts to arm the rebels were — at a minimum — under discussion at the highest levels of the government.

“We’re entitled to tell the jury, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the Secretary of State and her highest staff members were actively contemplating providing exactly the type of military assistance that Mr. Turi is here to answer for,” the defense attorney said, according to a transcript.

Turi’s defense was pressing for more documents about the alleged rebel-arming effort and for testimony from officials who worked on the issue the State Department and the CIA. The defense said it planned to argue that Turi believed he had official permission to work on arms transfers to Libya

“If we armed the rebels, as publicly reported in many, many sources and as we strongly believe happened and as we believe at least one witness told the grand jury, then documents about that process relate to that effort,” Cabou told Campbell at the same hearing last year.

 

Moscow delivers S-300 missile system to Syria for defense of Russian naval base

October 4, 2016

Moscow delivers S-300 missile system to Syria for defense of Russian naval base

Published time: 4 Oct, 2016 15:33 Edited time: 4 Oct, 2016 16:02

Source: Moscow delivers S-300 missile system to Syria for defense of Russian naval base — RT News

© Kirill Kallinikov / Sputnik

A battery of Russian S-300 air defense missile launchers has been transported to Syria, Russia’s Defense Ministry said in a statement. Its sole purpose is to defend a Russian naval base and warships, the ministry added.
Read more

The Russian Embassy in Damascus. © Mikhail Alaeddin

The information about the S-300’s deployment was confirmed by ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov.

“Indeed, the Syrian Arab Republic received an S-300 anti-aircraft missile system. This system is designed to ensure the safety of the naval base in [Syrian city of] Tartus and ships located in the coastal area [in Syria]…” he told the media.

Konashenkov said it is unclear why the deployment of the missile system has created such a fuss in the West.

“The S-300 is a purely defensive system and poses no threat,” he said.

He recalled that before the deployment of S-300, Russia had delivered Fort air defense missile systems to Syria.

The statement comes after a report by Fox news that a Russian S-300 was deployed to Syria. The media cited three US officials who claimed that Moscow “continues to ramp up its military operations in Syria.”

In November 2015, Moscow deployed its newest S-400 air defense missile system to Khmeimim in Syria as part of a security boost following the downing of a Russian jet by Turkey near the border with that country. At the time, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the S-400 systems are not targeting Russia’s partners, “with whom we fight terrorists in Syria together.”

The S-400 is the most advanced anti-aircraft defense system in Russia.

Obama Admin Secretly Facilitated Iranian Ballistic Missile Program

October 4, 2016

Obama Admin Secretly Facilitated Iranian Ballistic Missile Program, Washington Free Beacon, , October 4, 2016

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry smiles during a speech on the future of "Transatlantic Relations" during an event hosted by The German Marshall Fund (GMF) and the U.S. Mission to the EU at Concert Noble in Brussels, Tuesday, Oct. 4, 2016. Kerry is in Brussels for a two-day conference, hosted by the EU, with the participation of over 70 countries to discuss the current situation in Afghanistan. (AP Photo/Geert Vanden Wijngaert)

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry smiles during a speech on the future of “Transatlantic Relations” during an event hosted by The German Marshall Fund (GMF) and the U.S. Mission to the EU at Concert Noble in Brussels, Tuesday, Oct. 4, 2016. AP Photo/Geert Vanden Wijngaert

The Obama administration misled journalists and lawmakers for more than nine months about a secret agreement to lift international sanctions on a critical funding node of Iran’s ballistic missile program, as part of a broader “ransom” package earlier this year that involved Iran freeing several U.S. hostages, according to U.S. officials and congressional sources apprised of the situation.

The administration agreed to immediately lift global restrictions on Iran’s Bank Sepah—a bank the Treasury Department described in 2007 as the “linchpin of Iran’s missile procurement”–eight years before they were to be lifted under last summer’s comprehensive nuclear agreement. U.S. officials initially described the move as a “goodwill gesture” to Iran.

The United States also agreed to provide Iran $1.7 billion in cash to release or drop charges against 21 Iranians indicted for illegally assisting Tehran. Full details of this secret agreement were kept hidden from Congress and journalists for more than nine months, multiple sources told theWashington Free Beacon.

State Department officials who spoke to the Free Beacon now say the United States “already made” the decision to drop U.S. sanctions, but declined to address multiple questions aimed at clarifying the discrepancy between past and current explanations for dropping international sanctions.

The Free Beacon first reported on these terms in January, including the dropping of international sanctions on Bank Sepah.

State Department officials told the Free Beacon at the time that the settlement with Iran, including the $1.7 billion cash award, was “not related” to “the release of the U.S. citizens from Iran.”

U.S. officials last week confirmed to the Wall Street Journal that in fact the dropping of sanctions on Bank Sepah “was part of a package of tightly scripted agreements” surrounding the release of the U.S. citizens from Iran.

When asked about the discrepancies between these statements, a State Department official would not elaborate, instead telling the Free Beacon, “The U.S. government had already made the determination that it would remove Bank Sepah from our domestic Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List on Implementation Day, which was outlined clearly in the JCPOA [nuclear deal] itself in July 2015.”

“We made this determination after a careful review of the activity of all individuals and entities—including Bank Sepah—that would be removed from the SDN list,” the official explained. “Although we removed Bank Sepah from the U.S. SDN list, Bank Sepah will continue to be cut off from the U.S. financial system and its funds under U.S. jurisdiction will remain blocked. Furthermore, we have the ability to quickly reimpose additional U.S. sanctions if Bank Sepah or any other entity engages in activities that remain sanctionable.”

The Free Beacon was not the only publication that was provided with misleading information by the Obama administration.

U.S. officials told Al Monitor in late January that the move to cancel international sanctions on Bank Sepah at the United Nations was undertaken by Venezuela without U.S. action.

“We already made the decision to delist this bank as part of U.S. secondary sanctions as part of the nuclear deal,” the official added, claiming the United States only agreed “not to oppose the delisting at the U.N., which Iran very much wanted.”

Senior Iranian officials said in January that the $1.7 billion payment and delisting of Bank Sepah were part of the agreement to free U.S. hostages, a charge the Obama administration denied at the time.

“The annulment of sanctions against Iran’s Bank Sepah and reclaiming of $1.7mln of Iran’s frozen assets after 36 years showed that the U.S. doesn’t understand anything but the language of force,” Mohammad Reza Naqdi, commander of Iran’s Basij Volunteer Force, told Iran’s state-controlled press in early February.

Senior congressional sources apprised of the matter told the Free Beacon that these latest revelations provide further proof of the administration’s intentional bid to deceive the public about its dealings with Iran.

“Facts are facts, no matter how much the administration tries to hide them,” said one senior congressional aide involved in investigating the matter. “Journalists and Members of Congress are on the trail and have already uncovered so much, including the cash payment of almost $2 billion to the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism as a ransom for four American hostages. The truth, no matter how disturbing it is, will continue to come out.”

“This should eliminate any remaining doubt that the administration paid a ransom to Iran,” said another source familiar with the issue. “Why else would they keep Congress and the American people in the dark about this unprecedented concession? President Obama’s continued capitulation to the Iranian regime is a hazard to our national security.”

Another source who serves as a senior adviser to Congress and is familiar with the administration’s thinking told the Free Beacon that the Obama administration misled the public to avoid sparking outrage over its decision to drop sanctions on the top funder of Iran’s ballistic missile program.

“The Obama administration couldn’t tell the American public that it had just unleashed Iran’s ballistic missile program as one part of an enormous ransom extracted by Iran,” the source said. “So instead they ran to friendly reporters to misleadingly boast about how successful their diplomacy was, while they were bribing Iran with billions of dollars and military concessions to stay at the table.”

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, described the administration’s move as putting Iran’s ballistic missile program “back in business.”

“It represents a unilateral dismantling of the international ballistic missile embargo against the Islamic Republic,” FDD wrote in a recent policy analysis. “Iran’s preferred missile-financing bank is back in business.”

Iran has test fired multiple ballistic missiles since the nuclear deal was implemented, despite international restrictions on this type of activity.

Voter Fraud Rising

October 4, 2016

Voter Fraud Rising, Front Page MagazineMatthew Vadum, October 4, 2016

voterfraud

Conservatives think fighting voter fraud is important; liberals and progressives don’t care — and many of them go further, arguing that voter fraud is an imaginary problem.

Voting by illegal aliens and other non-citizens – millions of whom are registered to vote – is widespread. . . .

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

There is already evidence that voter fraud is being perpetrated in critical battleground states like Virginia and Colorado a month before Election Day.

Voter fraud is commonplace. Completely eliminating it is impossible. The most policymakers can do is create laws and policies that attempt to minimize it.

Voter fraud is unlawful interference with the electoral process in an effort to bring about a desired result. Voter fraud is also called vote fraud, election fraud, and electoral fraud. It refers to fraudulent voting, impersonation, intimidation, perjury, voter registration fraud, forgery, counterfeiting, bribery, destroying already cast ballots, and a multitude of crimes related to the electoral process.

Reasonable people can disagree over how serious a problem voter fraud is in today’s America, but the evidence it actually exists cannot be ignored.

This is where people on the Right and Left differ. Conservatives think fighting voter fraud is important; liberals and progressives don’t care — and many of them go further, arguing that voter fraud is an imaginary problem.

News of the illegal voting in Virginia and Colorado comes as Republican candidate Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed in campaign speeches that the system, including the electoral system, is “rigged.”

Trump has been issuing this warning about the election for months. After a series of anti-voter fraud laws were struck down in several states by federal courts, the candidate raised the possibility that people will vote over and over in the election, voting for which is already underway in many states.

“There’s a lot of dirty pool played at the election, meaning the election is rigged,” Trump said two months ago. “I would not be surprised. The voter ID, they’re fighting as hard as you can fight so that they don’t have to show voter ID. So, what’s the purpose of that?”

People will be able to vote “multiple times,” he said. “How about like 10 times. Why not? If you don’t have voter ID [requirements], you can just keep voting and voting and voting.”

In fact the Left has made it easy to commit voter fraud. Bill Clinton’s Motor-Voter law of 1993 opened the floodgates to fraud.

Nowadays the Left unfairly influences election outcomes by fighting electoral integrity laws in the courts, often enjoying great success. On Sept. 9, a federal appeals court blocked a proof-of-citizenship requirement on a federal mail voter registration form in Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas. This year alone federal courts have blocked voter ID laws to varying extents in North Carolina, North Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin.

The danger of the national vote being compromised is real, according to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson who has acknowledged that cyber attackers could engage in massive electronic vote fraud. At least 18 states have asked Johnson’s department for help. The agency says the electoral systems of more than 20 stateshave been targeted by cyber criminals.

Now Americans are learning that there are at least 1,046 non-citizens on the voter rolls in eight counties in Virginia, according to a new report released jointly by the Virginia Voters Alliance and the Public Interest Legal Foundation. No proof of U.S. citizenship is required in Virginia to register to vote.

“Virginia election officials don’t seem to care that thousands of aliens have corrupted their voter rolls,” by unlawfully registering to vote, J. Christian Adams, the former Department of Justice lawyer who now heads the Public Interest Legal Foundation told Breitbart News. “Even worse than doing nothing about it, they are trying to cover it up,” he said.

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D), a longtime Hillary Clinton crony, instructed election officials to ignore inquiries about possible electoral irregularities, Adams says. This summer after the Supreme Court of Virginia threw out McAuliffe’s blanket clemency order, the governor defiantly restored voting rights to 13,000 felons and vowed to take that figure to 200,000.

Just a few illegal votes can affect the outcome of an election. Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring (D) defeated Mark Obenshain (R) in 2013 by just 165 votes out of 2.2 million votes cast.

The thousand-odd non-citizens currently on the rolls, all identified by name in the report, may be the tip of the iceberg. The problem “is most certainly exponentially worse because we have no data regarding aliens on the registration rolls for the other 125 Virginia localities.”

“Even in this small sample, when the voting history of this small sample of alien registrants is examined, nearly 200 verified ballots were cast before they were removed from the rolls,” the report states. “Each one of them is likely a felony.”

And in Harrisonburg, Va., local officials and the FBI are investigating after 18 to 20 potentially fraudulent voter registrations were filed in the names of dead people. Democrat Andrew Spieles reportedly admitted filing the documents.

Recent reports also indicate the dead have been voting in Colorado. There are at least 78 dead people currently registered to vote in the Centennial State.

Obviously, fraudulent and inaccurate voter registrations open the door to fraudulent voting.

A 2012 Pew Center on the States study revealed around 24 million — one out of every eight — U.S. voter registrations are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate. About 2.75 million people are registered to vote in more than one state and more than 1.8 million dead people are still on voter rolls.

Left-wing activists who don’t care about voter fraud register millions of voters every election, sometimes with potentially disastrous results. For example, in 2008, ACORN collected more than 1 million voter registrations and 400,000 of those applications “were rejected by election officials for a variety of reasons, including duplicate registrations, incomplete forms, and fraudulent submissions,” the New York Times reported at the time.

The infamous left-wing activist group ACORN and at least 54 individuals connected to it have been convicted of voter fraud and related offenses, as I reported in my 2011 book, Subversion Inc.

Voting by illegal aliens and other non-citizens – millions of whom are registered to vote – is widespread, according to a report released two years ago by Jesse Richman and David Earnest, two political science professors at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Va.

“We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections,” the professors say, adding that non-citizens favor Democratic candidates over Republican candidates.

“Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress,” the authors write. They estimate that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008, followed by 2.2 percent of non-citizens in 2010.

Indeed, Al Franken (D) triumphed over incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman (R) in Minnesota in 2009 by a mere 312 votes after a protracted, suspicious recount presided over by leftist Secretary of State Mark Ritchie (D). Illegally cast ballots may have put Franken over the top.

As Trump suggested, double-voting and triple-voting are distressingly common.

In California’s presidential primary this year, “in just three counties, Contra Costa, Alameda and Santa Clara, 194 people voted twice, suggesting the abuse statewide might run into the thousands,” the East Bay Times reported.

Earlier this year, Robert Monroe was sent to jail in Wisconsin after being charged with 13 counts of fraud, including multiple voting and voting twice in the 2012 presidential contest.

Pasco Parker, a Tennessee man was discovered to have who voted in the 2012 presidential election three times in three different states — Florida, North Carolina, and Tennessee. “It’s too easy to vote twice; it comes down to your honor,” Jay DeLancy of the North Carolina-based Voting Integrity Project, which caught Parker in the act, told Fox News. DeLancy’s group found another 148 cases of suspected double-voting and turned its files over to authorities.

In 2013, Cincinnati community organizer Melowese Richardson was jailed for illegally voting five times in different elections. In 2011, Mississippi NAACP executive Lessadolla Sowers was imprisoned for 10 counts of fraudulently casting absentee ballots.

Voter fraud is easy to commit as video journalist James O’Keefe III, the ACORN slayer, has proven over and over again. The Project Veritas founder had little trouble uncovering fraud and questionable election practices in Colorado, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia.

This summer O’Keefe set out to show that voter impersonation takes place at the polls. He gave the names of four well-known Michiganders including rapper Eminem to election officials and was offered a ballot in all but one case. In 2012 an O’Keefe colleague gave the name of then-U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in Holder’s own voting precinct in Washington, D.C. and was offered his ballot.

Some on the Left are in denial about voter fraud and many of the rest know the truth but lie anyway. Earlier this year U.S. District Judge Lynn S. Adelman of the Eastern District of Wisconsin, a Bill Clinton appointee, claimed that “virtually no voter impersonation occurs” in Wisconsin and that “no evidence suggests that voter-impersonation fraud will become a problem at any time in the foreseeable future.”

The Left’s voter fraud denial industry, underwritten by radical billionaires like George Soros and the leftist groups he funds such as Center for American Progress, Demos, Media Matters for America, and the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, routinely misrepresent the facts about voter fraud and spread propaganda.

If you believe voter fraud exists, you are smeared by these leftists as a racist and a kook.

Which means there are millions of Americans who are about to get smeared by the Left.

Brutal ISIS Executions, Military Weakness, and A New Refugee Crisis

October 4, 2016

Brutal ISIS Executions, Military Weakness, and A New Refugee Crisis, Counter Jihad, October 4, 2016

islsttflag

 Increasingly Russia and their Iranian allies are looking likely to dominate the northern Middle East from Afghanistan to the Levant.  This President has been badly outmaneuvered.  The next President will have to decide how much he or she is willing to risk in order to try to deal with the feeding of “jihadism… by war and state failure.”

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

The Islamic State (ISIS) has delivered a new propaganda video showing another gruesome mass execution of fellow Muslims.  The group proclaims that the video should serve as a warning to any Muslims thinking of coming to join any of the rebel armies fighting against them in the conflict.  Amid Nazi salutes, ISIS soldiers clad in stolen American-made 3 color DCU uniforms promised to fight the “apostates” whom they painted as being on the same side as the Americans.

Yet the Americans have done but little to support any allies in the region.  As the Economist notes, US President Barack Obama has kept American forces largely out of the conflict except in an advisory role.  This is because, they explain, he views an American intervention as likely to cause more harm than good.  His policy has been throughout “cool,” “rational,” and “wrong.”

As America has pulled back, others have stepped in—geopolitics abhors a vacuum. Islamic State (IS) has taken over swathes of Syria and Iraq. A new generation of jihadists has been inspired to fight in Syria or attack the West. Turkey, rocked by Kurdish and jihadist violence (and a failed coup), has joined the fight in Syria. Jordan and Lebanon, bursting with refugees, fear they will be sucked in. The exodus of Syrians strengthens Europe’s xenophobic populists and endangers the European Union. A belligerent Russia feels emboldened….

None of this is in America’s interest. Being cool and calculating is not much use if everybody else thinks you are being weak. Even if America cannot fix Syria, it could have helped limit the damage, alleviate suffering and reduce the appeal of jihadism…. Mr Obama says that Mr Assad eventually must go, but has never willed the means to achieve that end. (Some rebel groups receive CIA weapons, but that is about it.)… [J]ihadism is fed by war and state failure: without a broader power-sharing agreement in Syria and Iraq any victory against IS will be short-lived; other jihadists will take its place.

Russia has been building pressure on the Obama administration in other ways.  Since the suspending of talks between the US and Russia, the Putin administration has announced major nuclear war games that will move tens of millions of people to civil defense shelters on very short notice.  They have suspended nuclear arms deals with the United States involving plutonium cleanup, suggesting that they fear the US will cheat.  The Russians have also deployed one of their advanced missile systems outside of their homeland for the first time.  The deployment was made without comment, but as one American official noted wryly, ““Nusra doesn’t have an air force do they?”  Al Nusra Front is an al Qaeda linked organization that has been sometimes allied with, but more often at war with, the Islamic State.

All of this means that America’s window to take a more aggressive approach may be closing, if it has not already closed.  Increasingly Russia and their Iranian allies are looking likely to dominate the northern Middle East from Afghanistan to the Levant.  This President has been badly outmaneuvered.  The next President will have to decide how much he or she is willing to risk in order to try to deal with the feeding of “jihadism… by war and state failure.”

The threat is very real, as estimates are that the assault on Mosul might produce another million refugees headed for Europe and America, orperhaps half again that many.  The failure to take a more aggressive approach may end up bringing a flood tide of human suffering and terror.

Trump should propose real debates

October 4, 2016

Trump should propose real debates, Dan Miller’s Blog, October 4, 2016

(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

The first presidential “debate” was a farce. The next presidential “debates” will likely be as well. Rather than submit to biased mainstream media moderators (but I repeat myself), Trump should propose real debates, in addition to or as substitutes for those currently scheduled. The article is also a bit of a rant about Ms. Clinton.

demdebatemoderator

In a real debate, one resolution is proposed. The candidate in favor of the proposition speaks first and gets a specified amount of time to say why it’s a good idea. Then the candidate against the proposition gets a specified amount of time for rebuttal and the other candidate a specified amount of time to respond. A timekeeper would alert the candidates when time is almost up and then up. There would be no moderator to help one debater and to trash the other; the debaters would be on their own. Both would know the issue in advance and could prepare to address it however they please and with or without prepared notes. Were our presidential debates so conducted, viewers might well learn about the candidates’ positions on the issues by how the candidates address them, rather than via the moderator.

Here are a few possible debate propositions, for illustrative purposes only:

Latin American Immigration

In a recent article, in Spanish, Hillary wrote

that no other region in the world is “more important” for the prosperity and security of the United States than Latin America.

“There is power in our proximity, which means we are not only close geographically but also in our values, interests and in our common cultural heritage,” Clinton said, adding that the “interdependence” of the economies of the two regions, as well as the ties between communities and families, is a tremendous advantage.

“We shouldn’t build a wall between us because of that truth, but rather accept it,” she said, a clear reference to her rival, Republican candidate Donald Trump, who has promised more than once to build a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico if elected to the White House.

Ms. Clinton has disagreed with Trump’s assertion that “No one has the right to immigrate to this country.”

092216-hillary-retweet

A real debate grounded on the following resolution would deal with the matter raised by Ms. Clinton. Hillary could take the affirmative and Trump the negative:

Resolved: no other region in the world is more important for the prosperity and security of the United States than Latin America.

There is power in our proximity, which means we are not only close geographically but also in our values, interests and in our common cultural heritage. The interdependence of the economies of the two regions, as well as the ties between communities and families, is a tremendous advantage.

We shouldn’t build a wall between us because of that truth, but rather accept it. The wall along our southern border would keep our the good immigrants we need and there is a right to immigrate to America.

Trump would probably point out that his wall would prevent not even one legal immigrant from coming to the United States. He might also suggest that were our immigration laws and procedures more rational (like those of Mexico?) and reflected American interests as well as those of the immigrants, it would be much easier for the immigrants we want to come, legally: those who haven’t committed significant law violations, can soon become self-supporting instead of relying on welfare, do not have serious contagious diseases and appear likely to accept American values rather than, for example, joining gangs and/or importing drugs. Trump could easily provide legal support for the proposition that there is, in fact, no legal right to immigrate to America.

Islam, the religion of peace, tolerance and women’s rights

There has been substantial discussion in the few media outlets providing an “honest discussion” of Islam about the extent to which Hillary and her colleague Huma Abedin have similar views on Sharia law. Under a Clinton presidency, Huma would likely have a high place at the White House, if not as Secretary of State.

Even if Huma were to state that she disagrees with her father, mother and other close relatives about Islam and Sharia law, would she tell the truth or engage in Al-taqiyya (lying to non-Muslims to advance Islamist doctrine)?

Huma

worked on an Islamist journal for 12 years, beginning the year she became a White House intern. She hasn’t commented on that job.

. . . .

In 2012, Rep. Michele Bachmann and four other members of Congress requested information about the influence of Muslim Brotherhood-tied groups and individuals in the U.S. government, including Abedin, who worked for 12 years as an assistant editor of an Islamist journal that spewed extremism.

Abedin’s tenure at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs began in 1996, the year she began working as an intern at the White house.

While it is certainly possible to disavow the ideology of one’s parents, Abedin has remained silent on their extremism as well as her work with on journal. It remains to be seen whether or not she will repudiate these new findings.

. . . .

Syed Abedin, Huma Abedin’s father who died in 1993, was a Muslim scholar connected to the Saudi Arabian government. According to exclusive video footage from 1971 recently obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, Syed Abedin advocated the following:

As Muslim countries evolve, he said, “The state has to take over. The state is stepping in in many countries … where the state is now overseeing that human relationships are carried on on the basis of Islam. The state also under Islam has a right to interfere in some of these rights given to the individual by the sharia.”

In addition, he is quoted as saying, “The main dynamics of life in the Islamic world are still supplied by Islam. Any institution, as I said before, any concept, any idea, in order to be accepted and become a viable thing in the Islamic world has to come through … Islam.”

Abedin’s mother, Saleha, has an especially strong Islamist ties. She is a member of the female counterpart of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Muslim World League. She leads a group called the International Islamic Committee for Women and Child, a subsidiary of a Muslim Brotherhood-led group that is banned in Israel for its links to Hamas.

In 1999 and three years after Huma began working for the journal, the journal and Saleha Abedin’s group published a book in Arabic titled “Women in Islam: A Discourse in Rights and Obligations.”

The book states that man-made law is inherently oppressive towards women, while sharia law is liberating. According to the text, Muslim women have an obligation to contribute to jihad, apostates are to be put to death, adulterers should be stoned or lashed, freedom of speech should be conformed to the boundaries set by sharia and wives must have sex with their husbands on command, “even if she is not in the mood.“

In addition, the organization led by Huma Abedin’s mother “advocates for the repeal of Mubarak-era prohibitions on female genital mutilation, child marriage and marital rape, on the grounds that such prohibitions run counter to Islamic law, which allows for their practice,” according to an analysis by the Center for Security policy.

The book advocates against laws to assure equality of women, saying, “Man-made laws have in fact enslaved women, submitting them to the cupidity and caprice of human beings. Islam is the only solution and the only escape.”

In terms of women working in high positions, the book states, “Her job would involve long hours of free mixing and social interaction with the opposite sex, which is forbidden in Islam. Moreover, women’s biological constitution is different from that of men. Women are fragile, emotional and sometimes unable to handle difficult and strenuous situations. Men are less emotional and show more perseverance.”

As noted in an article titled PIGGY-Headed,

Honor killings of their own maimed and maltreated women.  Forced conversions and kidnappings and abductions of whole school-loads of girls and women.  Selling these captives on the open market as slaves for the slugs who then abuse the women and girls unto death.  Not to mention torture as a rule, not exception, for captured women.  Nor, of course, the overall banning of women from driving, traveling alone, working outside the home, or suing for their own lives, domestic arrangements, or unheard-of gay right to not have a male husband/overlord.

For all these, the “Ms. Piggy”- quoting smartest woman in the world has done and said…nothing.

What do Muslims worldwide believe?

How about,

Resolved: America is not merely a Judeo-Christian nation and Islam is no less peaceful and tolerant than Christiany and Judaism. To become more diverse, we need more Muslim refugees and should strive to accommodate them by making our laws less offensive.

Hillary could take the affirmative and Trump the negative.

Conclusions

Trump should offer Ms. Clinton an opportunity to provide additional resolutions for debate which he might support.

Were Trump to propose supplemental or replacement debates along these lines, Hillary would very likely reject his offer because she needs support from the moderators and would understand the dangers a real debate would present. If Ms. Clinton declines Trump’s offer, he should feel free to decide whether to participate in the partisan “debate” farce as currently established.