Archive for January 2017

Rouhani: Trump’s talk ‘propaganda,’ he can’t cancel Iran nuclear deal

January 17, 2017

Source: Rouhani: Trump’s talk ‘propaganda,’ he can’t cancel Iran nuclear deal – Middle East – Jerusalem Post

ByREUTERS
17 January 2017 16:19

“I am optimistic about the future of the nuclear deal… the deal is good for the United States but he doesn’t understand,” says Iranian president of Trump.
Trump and Rouhani

DUBAI – Iranian president Hassan Rouhani said on Tuesday that he was optimistic about the future of the nuclear deal Tehran signed with world powers, and said that US President-elect Donald Trump cannot unilaterally cancel the accord.

“The president elect has shown he is not happy about the nuclear deal, calling it the worst deal ever signed. This is only propaganda. I don’t think he can do much when he goes to the White House,” Rouhani said in a news conference on the anniversary of lifting of international sanctions against Iran.
“I am optimistic about the future of the nuclear deal… the deal is good for the United States but he doesn’t understand,” Rouhani said in comments broadcast live on state television.

With Trump’s inauguration due on Friday, officials who follow Iran closely have said they are waiting to see what stance Trump takes on the deal, which also lifted international sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

Trump has called the agreement, one of the Obama administration’s flagship achievements, “the worst deal ever negotiated.” He has, however, backed away from the assertion that he wants to “rip up” the deal, saying more recently that he would “police that contract so tough they (the Iranians) don’t have a chance.”

That raises the question of how he would react if Iran continued to test the deal’s boundaries. Twice since the pact was implemented in January Tehran has gone over a 130-tonne limit on its stock of heavy water, prompting limited criticism from the United States.

Iran has also argued that the United States has failed to provide the full sanctions relief called for by the deal, a charge Washington denies. Tehran has, however, stopped short of triggering a dispute-resolution mechanism created by the deal.

‘US defense secretary-designate wanted to strike Iran in 2011’

January 17, 2017

Source: Israel Hayom | ‘US defense secretary-designate wanted to strike Iran in 2011’

Former Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, then-commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, was denied by Obama administration, which feared a strike would derail secret nuclear talks • Mattis slated to serve as defense secretary in Trump administration.

Israel Hayom Staff
James Mattis will serve as next U.S. secretary of defense

 Photo credit: Reuters

Iraqi Writer: We Need Global Fatwa Denouncing Islamic Extremism

January 17, 2017

Iraqi Writer: We Need Global Fatwa Denouncing Islamic Extremism, MEMRI, January 16, 2017

(The title seems to be misleading. The fatwa does not appear to refer to all Islamic extremism and “denounces as infidels all Muslims who kill their fellow Muslims or [the Muslims’] allies whose blood is protected and who may not be killed [according to the shari’a].” To which “allies” of the Muslims does the fatwa refer? Christians? Jews? Hindus? Atheists? — DM)

In an article he published in the London-based daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Iraqi writer and journalist Khalid Al-Kishtainy called to issue a fatwa against terrorism agreed-upon by Islamic scholars worldwide, which will be widely distributed on the media and in public places and taught in religious and educational facilities. He wrote that the responsibility to eliminate Islamic terrorism and the ideology that underpins it rests with the Muslims alone, and that only persistent efforts in this direction will yield the required results.[1]

qishtainiKhalid Al-Kishtainy (image: Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, London)

“On December 21, [2016], the general secretariat of Saudi Arabia’s Senior Clerics Council issued a fatwa that denounces as infidels all Muslims who kill their fellow Muslims or [the Muslims’] allies whose blood is protected and who may not be killed [according to the shari’a]. [The fatwa proclaims] that whoever does so commits one of the gravest violations, which cannot be justified in any way, and is barred from entering Paradise. This is a clear message, but sadly it did not gain the distribution and the attention it merited. The fatwa was issued [precisely] at a time when I was thinking about, and calling for the issuing of a global fatwa of this kind, because the terror of Muslim extremists has grown into a monster whose shadow looms over the entire [world], threatening all human societies. Not a day passes without us hearing news of a catastrophe [caused by this terror]; no Islamic country, and no country that is intervening in an Islamic country, is spared [these terror attacks].

“The terror of Islamic extremists has become a well-known [scourge], and therefore requires a resounding response. The other [non-Islamic] countries [of the world] have tried to take various measures in order to monitor these extremist Muslims, hunt them down, raid their hiding places and arrest their leaders and supporters. However, reality shows that these efforts have been futile, since supporters of Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram and their ilk have multiplied and spread [across the world]… Their main weapon is their deviant beliefs… and we must fight them using the same weapon [i.e., religious ideology]… [To this end] we need a global fatwa, agreed upon by all Islamic scholars from all Islamic countries and sects. They must issue a notable ruling that will be distributed in all mosques, schools, prisons, educational facilities and armies, and posted in public places. Teachers and clerics will read it out and explain it from the mosque pulpits and on television, radio, the internet and on [social] networks. It is important to persist in these efforts – for [only by] stubbornly reiterating [the message], again and again, will we attain the desired results.

“We must purge the diseased minds of these baseless and fraudulent beliefs. That is a war that we must wage. The people of the West cannot wage it [for us]; the responsibility lies with us. If ISIS attains its goals by brainwashing youths [and filling their minds] with poison, we must purge [their minds] using the true disinfectant, namely true faith that strengthens one’s mind and knowledge.”

 

Endnotes:

 

[1] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), January 1, 2017.

CNN/ORC Poll: Roughly 80 Percent Of Americans Do Not Believe That Russian Hacking Changed The Outcome of the Election

January 17, 2017

CNN/ORC Poll: Roughly 80 Percent Of Americans Do Not Believe That Russian Hacking Changed The Outcome of the Election, Jonathan Turley’s Blog, Jonathan Turley, January 17, 2017

(UPDATE: This post has been removed by the author and replaced with a different analysis of the poll. The replacement article now states that “A new CNN/ORC poll shows roughly 8 out of 10 voters followed the controversy but 58 percent doubt that the hacking influenced the outcome of the election. [This posting was updated]”– DM)

cnnlogo

 Ironically, in the end, the emails showed the public that the establishment in Washington is every bit as corrupt and dishonest as they thought.  It was only the messenger not the message that came as a surprise.

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

The Democratic establishment has been pushing hard on a new narrative that Hillary Clinton lost not because of her record negatives polling going back years on truthfulness or the desire of the voters for a non-establishment candidate or the baggage carried by Clinton into the election.  Rather, it was the hacking by the Russians with a bit of help from FBI Director James Comey, according to this universal spin.  The media has assisted to a degree by referring to the “Russian hacking of the election,” which is obviously not true.  The election was not hacked. No voting machines or tallies were hacked.  Emails were hacked and none of those emails appear to have been altered. They were real emails showing highly dishonest conduct by key players.  Despite the virtual mantra from Washington, voters are clearly not buying it.  A new CNN/ORC poll shows roughly 8 out of 10 voters do not believe that the hacking changed the outcome of the election.

The number included not just 72 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of independents but a surprising 84 percent of Democrats.

I have previously discussed the difficult sell that Democrats would have to make on the hacking spin.  As revealed by the intelligence report, the emails were not false or tampered with as claimed by Donna Brazile (who appears immune for media follow ups).  The Democrats are trying ton trigger outrage among citizens that the hacking revealed true and disturbing emails of lying and vicious dealing by insiders in Washington. It did not work during the campaign and is clearly not working now.  That does not mean that citizens are not concerned with Russian hacking. However, citizens have been hearing for years of our own hacking and surveillance of our allies, let alone opposing governments.  More importantly, (while ignored by the Democratic leadership at their own peril), voters were in an anti-establishment mood and many relished the fact that establishment figures were exposed like Brazile for things like feeding questions to the Clinton campaign.  Of course, there was clearly a selective release of such emails against Democrats and that is a valid objection. However, it takes a lot to get the public upset about being told how insiders lied to them or tried to rig the primary for Clinton.

What is interesting is the the Democrats are continuing this full-court press on the same hacking line despite the polls — a repeat of the strategies from the election.  There is no question that the hacking should focus all Americans on the vulnerability of our system and the constant threat from hostile powers like Russia.  Yet, the DNC was aware of that danger before the election and yet had a laughable security system.  In combination with Clinton’s reckless use of a personal server at Secretary of State, it shows a level of negligence and recklessness that was surprising given years of hacking cases.  Ironically, in the end, the emails showed the public that the establishment in Washington is every bit as corrupt and dishonest as they thought.  It was only the messenger not the message that came as a surprise.

Kerry Attacks Trump for Stepping into “Politics of Other Countries”

January 17, 2017

Kerry Attacks Trump for Stepping into “Politics of Other Countries”, Front Page Magazine (The Point), Daniel Greenfield, January 16, 2017

spacemankerry

And now, a lesson in diplomacy from America’s Worst Living Diplomat.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Monday it was “inappropriate” for Donald Trump to brand German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s refugee policy “a catastrophic mistake”.

“I thought frankly it was inappropriate for a president-elect of the United States to be stepping into the politics of other countries in a quite direct manner,” Kerry told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour during a one-day visit to London in the last week of the Obama administration.

You don’t say.

Kerry just came off blasting Israel’s government and blaming it for anything and everything. The British government had lectured Kerry for being undiplomatic by stepping into Israeli politics in a quite direct manner.

The Prime Minister’s spokesman criticised John Kerry, the outgoing US Secretary of State, after he described the Israeli government as the “most Right-wing in history”.

Mrs May does “not believe that it is appropriate” for Mr Kerry to attack the make-up of the democratically elected Israeli government, the spokesman said.

But the State Department claimed in its defense that the Saudis still supported them.

Now a tone deaf Kerry is attacking Trump for stepping into another country’s politics. Kerry claims that’s inappropriate, when he was just guilty of it.

“I think we have to be very careful about suggesting that one’s strongest leaders in Europe, and most important players with respect to where we are heading, made one mistake or another. I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to be commenting on that,” Kerry said.

But his regime had no problem commenting on Brexit and threatening the UK. And his boss had no problem blaming the UK for his illegal Libyan War and assorted policy failures in the region.

He rejected Trump’s description of Merkel’s refugee policy as “catastrophic”.

“I think she was extremely courageous. I don’t think it amounts to that characterization,” Kerry said.

Kerry agrees with Merkel. That’s why he’s putting on this show. He opposes the UK and Israel. That’s the source of this double standard.

Cartoons and Video of the Day

January 16, 2017

Via Latma-TV

 

H/t Vermont Loon Watch

clowns

 

sitting

 

H/t Vermont Loon Watch

pervert

 

H/t Freedom is Just Another Word

socialism

 

racists

 

Shock Israeli Poll Finds Only 4% Want a Left-of-Center Prime Minister

January 16, 2017

Shock Israeli Poll Finds Only 4% Want a Left-of-Center Prime Minister, PJ MediaAvner Zarmi, January 16, 2017

biteme

But nowhere is this more obvious than in Israel, as a recent poll sponsored by the Jerusalem Post clearly demonstrates.

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

The political Left is in full retreat across most of the world.

Certainly, this is obvious in the United States. At present, 33 of the 50 states are governed by Republicans (and one, Alaska, by a fairly conservative independent). Of the twelve most populous states in the union, only one, California, is completely controlled by the Democratic Party. The other eleven are either completely controlled by Republicans or have divided government, including New York, where the state Senate is majority GOP.

This is equally evident across Europe. In the United Kingdom, the Labour Party is a shadow of its former self. The old Liberal Party (now the Liberal-Democratic Party) barely exists, and the Conservatives have a commanding lead in Parliament. The recent government shake-up that resulted in the fall of David Cameron and the rise of Theresa May was a disagreement within the Conservative Party concerning Brexit, an argument which Cameron lost. In France, Socialist President François Hollande is clearly on his way out, and the only real question is whether he’ll be succeeded by the conservative François Fallon or the Populist Marine Le Pen. Similar developments are rocking Germany, the Netherlands, and other European governments.

But nowhere is this more obvious than in Israel, as a recent poll sponsored by the Jerusalem Post clearly demonstrates.

In order to understand the real import of this poll, it is necessary to recount some Israeli history.

Since the founding of Israel in 1948, there have been twenty Knessiyoth (the Hebrew plural of Knesset, Israel’s parliament). Over the years, the number of members has remained stable at 120, but the make-up has changed markedly.

From 1948 to 1977, Israeli politics was completely dominated by the Left. In the first Knesset, parties of the Left (including the Israeli Communist Party) held 74 of the 120 seats. In the second Knesset, elected in 1951, they held 69 seats; in the third Knesset, elected in 1955, they held 70 seats; in the fourth Knesset (1959), they held 81 seats; in the fifth (1961), they held 64 seats; in the sixth (1965), they held 68 seats; in the seventh (1969), they held 66 seats.

In the eighth (December 1973), even after the terrible debacle of the Yom Kippur War, they still held 59 seats, representing the largest single faction in the Knesset.

In 1977, the first political “revolution” (as Israeli television commentators at the time called it) occurred: Likud became the largest faction with 54 seats; the fractured Left still retained 40. Likud continued to dominate until 1984, when the government veered leftward again, and the Leftist contingent had 55 seats. The election of 1988 returned Likud to power at the head of a governing coalition, but parties of the Left still held 53 seats, a balance of power which continued until 1992, when the Left again took power, with 59 seats.

The 1996 election, which saw Benjamin Netanyahu’s first term as prime minister, was a bit anomalous in that for the first time there was an independent election for prime minister. Despite Netanyahu’s victory, the Left still held the largest faction in the Knesset with 48 seats. The dual elections for the Knesset and premiership continued in 1999, when Ehud Barak succeeded Netanyahu and the Left continued to hold the largest faction in the Knesset with 47 seats.

For the 2003 election, the dual system was scrapped. The head of the largest party was invited to form a coalition again and serve as prime minister. This election saw the rise of Ariel Sharon; the Left’s share of the Knesset stood at 46 seats. In 2006 Sharon was succeeded by Ehud Olmert, and the Left’s share dwindled to 27 seats. In 2009 their faction declined to a mere 20 seats; 2013 saw a rebound to 31 seats; and the most recent election, in 2015, saw them rebound again to 42 seats (this includes the new Joint List, an amalgam of three Arab parties and the old Israeli Communist Party, which has both Jewish and Arab members).

Nonetheless, since 2009 the Likud has been the dominant party and Netanyahu has been the prime minister. Now we arrive at the import of the present poll.

Since the so-called “Zionist Union,” a fusion of the old Labor party and Tzipi Livni’s “Movement” party, is the second largest in the Knesset with 24 seats, you might think that its leader Yitzhak Herzog would be the second most popular candidate for prime minister. You would be wrong.

The poll shows — unsurprisingly — that 39% of the Israeli electorate still consider Netanyahu their best option.

But next in line? Five other politicians who do not belong to the left.

The centrist Ya’ir Lapid has 19%, followed by Naftali Bennett of the Bayith Yehudi party at 13%, followed by Gid‘on Sa‘ar of Likud with 10%, then former Defense Minister Moshe Ya‘alon (also Likud) with 8%, and current Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman (Yisrael Beytenu) with 7%.

Herzog is dead last with 4%, falling below the poll’s margin of error of +/- 4.5%.

Even among those who voted for the left-of-center Zionist Union in 2015, 26% favored Lapid and only 15% supported Herzog.

Oh, how the mighty left has fallen in Israel, and seemingly everywhere else.

Part I: Undercover investigation exposes groups plotting criminal activity at Trump inauguration

January 16, 2017

Part I: Undercover investigation exposes groups plotting criminal activity at Trump inauguration, Project Veritas via YouTube, January 16, 2017

According to the blurb beneath the video,

In this video, Project Veritas investigators uncover a group known as the DC Anti-fascist Coalition plotting to disrupt President-Elect Donald Trump’s inauguration by deploying butyric acid at the National Press Club during the Deploraball event scheduled for January 19th.

The meeting, captured on hidden camera, was held at Comet Ping Pong, a DC pizza restaurant that is better known as the location of the Pizzagate controversy. The coalition members discuss the steps they would need to take to halt the Deploraball event. Project Veritas notified the FBI, Secret Service and DC Metro Police of the content of this video prior to its release.

Conservative Professors at Wake Forest Speak Out

January 16, 2017

Conservative Professors at Wake Forest Speak Out, PJ MediaTom Knighton, January 16, 2017

(Shocking. I never woulda thunk. — DM)

athletics-quadroll-655x430-sized-770x415xt

The professors interviewed for the piece argue that they’re basically in hiding, afraid to espouse any conservative or libertarian ideology for fear it will negatively impact their careers:

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

While so much of what we hear about academia has an extreme leftist bent to it, it’s important to remember that there are a number of conservative professors floating around. They simply tend to remain silent for obvious reasons.

The Wake Forest Review decided to take a look at the situation, and found that — according to North Carolina’s Public Voter Search — about 11 percent of tenured, tenure-track, and teaching professors vote conservative.

They then spoke with some of the professors about their experiences:

Politics has replaced the pursuit of truth,” said a professor in the social sciences.

Ideology gets in the way of the pursuit of truth,” said a professor in literature. “It certainly lacks integrity to say I get to bring my political views to the table but someone else doesn’t,” said a professor in the humanities. Across the undergraduate college, political ideology is getting in the way of academic freedom and intellectual pursuits.

Professors said that there are questions that are not allowed to be asked and assumptions that are not allowed to be challenged for political reasons. “It’s such a flawed way to explore new ideas when you just rule out ideas as beyond the pale when half of the populous has these ideas and act like there are no replies to their own ideas. This is as debilitating to them [professors] as it is to their own students,” said a professor in the social sciences.

A different professor in the social sciences believes that this problem stems from intellectual arrogance: “The problem is that whenever you are on the liberal left, to some degree, you don’t really see conservative ideas as even valid or worth the time and effort to allow because you have a sense that you know more and you know better.” This arrogance creates what another professor described as an “ideological vacuum.” In this vacuum he described, professors do not acknowledge counter-arguments on issues or challenge their own assumptions.

Wake Forest’s provost, Rogan Kersh, notes that 11 percent appears to be a fairly normal percentage of right-leaning professors in academia. The professors interviewed for the piece argue that they’re basically in hiding, afraid to espouse any conservative or libertarian ideology for fear it will negatively impact their careers:

Due to these factors, many of these professors have decided to stay in hiding. One professor said staying in hiding makes it easier to get hired: “Conservatives can’t even get their foot in the door in a ton of disciplines in the social sciences and humanities unless they completely disguise it and fly under the radar.” Another professor believes that disguising his beliefs creates a better work environment: “I would lose harmony and congeniality if I was more open about some of my views.”

One professor has chosen to stay in hiding to avoid association with harmful labels. “There are a lot of things people mean when they say (they) are right of center or conservative, and we all don’t mean the same thing by that, which is important to keep in mind,” she said. She believes assumptions based on these labels “really undermine your career opportunities, your ability to lead effectively and to interact well with others and collaborate because people made a whole bunch of assumptions about you.”

Meanwhile, it’s unlikely to change in the near future. Part of the issue is that certain professions are more attractive to progressives than conservatives or libertarians — and university teaching is most definitely one of those.

Ethics Commissioner launches investigation of PM Trudeau

January 16, 2017

Ethics Commissioner launches investigation of PM Trudeau, CIJ NewsIlana Shneider, January 16, 2017

justin-trudeau-25-photo-cijnewsJustin Trudeau. Photo: CIJnews

Aga Khan is the 49th Hereditary Imam of the world’s 15 million Shia Ismaili Muslims, whose Aga Khan Foundation Canada, a registered lobbyist organization, received tens of millions of dollars from the federal government.

“Justin Trudeau acts like the laws don’t apply to people like him”, Interim Conservative leader Rona Ambrose wrote on her Facebook page. “Prime Minister Justin Trudeau knew what he did was against the law. All he had to do was say no, but he couldn’t resist the billionaire lifestyle vacay. He lives in a completely different world.”

Section 14.1 of the Conflict of Interest Act states that “neither a Member nor any member of a Member’s family shall accept, directly or indirectly, any gift or other benefit, except compensation authorized by law, that might reasonably be seen to have been given to influence the Member in the exercise of a duty or function of his or her office.”

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

An independent parliamentary watchdog has launched an investigation into Prime Minister Trudeau for possible violations of the Conflict of Interest Act, the National Post reported.

It is the first time in Canada’s history that a sitting prime minister will be investigated by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

By using the private helicopter belonging to Aga Khan during a secret vacation in the Bahamas, Prime Minister Trudeau may have violated federal law and breached the Act which forbids ministers from flying in private or chartered aircraft except under specific conditions, such as an emergency.

Aga Khan is the 49th Hereditary Imam of the world’s 15 million Shia Ismaili Muslims, whose Aga Khan Foundation Canada, a registered lobbyist organization, received tens of millions of dollars from the federal government.

According to Andrew Scheer, MP for Regina-Qu’Appelle and candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada, these facts raised a question regarding a possible conflict of interest.

Following the revelations about Trudeau’s stay at Aga Khan’s private island in the Bahamas, which included the Prime Minister’s family, Liberal MP Seamus O’Regan, Liberal Party president Anna Gainey and their respective spouses, the ethics commissioner’s office told the Toronto Star that it has started a “preliminary review” of Trudeau’s tropical vacation.

“Justin Trudeau acts like the laws don’t apply to people like him”, Interim Conservative leader Rona Ambrose wrote on her Facebook page. “Prime Minister Justin Trudeau knew what he did was against the law. All he had to do was say no, but he couldn’t resist the billionaire lifestyle vacay. He lives in a completely different world.”

Section 14.1 of the Conflict of Interest Act states that “neither a Member nor any member of a Member’s family shall accept, directly or indirectly, any gift or other benefit, except compensation authorized by law, that might reasonably be seen to have been given to influence the Member in the exercise of a duty or function of his or her office.”

In addition to a possible violation of the federal law, a group called “Les musulmans du Quebec” (Quebec Muslims) slammed Trudeau for vacationing at a resort owned by a “supporter” of the Syrian regime following a revelation by SANA, Syria’s official news agency, that Aga Khan and Syria’s president Bashar Assad have a close relationship.

“Thanks Trudeau for spending your vacation at Agha Khan, the donor for the criminal Bashar [Assad]. Ignorance has no place in government. Shame”, the group, which has more than 9,400 members, posted on its Facebook page on January 6, 2017.