The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) removed “handcuffs” placed on Border Patrol agents by the Obama Administration, freeing them to expand border enforcement operations.
DHS Secretary John F. Kelly lifted most of the restrictions imposed on Border Patrol agents under the previous administration and ordered Border Patrol agents expand their efforts to enforce laws against illegal border crossings. The order came in a memo obtained by Breitbart Texas from DHS officials and discontinued President Obama’s “catch and release” program known as the “Priority Enforcement Program” (PEP) enacted on November 20, 2014. The order leaves in place, President Obama’s deferred action programs for children brought to the U.S. illegally by their parents.
“Except as specifically noted above, the Department no longer will exempt classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement,” Secretary Kelly wrote in the memorandum. “In faithfully executing the immigration laws, Department personnel should take enforcement actions in accordance with applicable law.”
To support the expanded enforcement actions, Kelly ordered the hiring of an additional 5,000 Border Patrol agents and 500 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Air and Marine Operations (AMO) officers. “CBP has insufficient agents/officers to effectively detect, track, and apprehend all aliens illegally entering the United States,” Kelly continued. “The United States needs additional agents and officers to ensure complete operational control of the border.”
Leaked Border Patrol training materials released in an article by Breitbart Texas Managing Director Brandon Darby revealed the frustrating requirements placed on Border Patrol agents under the PEP program.
“Nothing says don’t arrest, but it clearly says don’t waste your time because the alien will not be put into detention, sent back or deported,” an official within U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) told Darby at the time. “There is literally no reason to arrest an illegal alien because they are specifically telling Border Patrol there will be no consequence for the illegal alien. It is a waste of time and resources to arrest someone who is off limits for detainment or deportation and the documents make that fact clear. Border Patrol agents are now being trained to be social workers, not law enforcement.”
After the Obama Administration had put the PEP program in place, a high percentage of migrants apprehended at the border were released with a “notice to appear.”
“[The Obama] administration has handcuffed the Border Patrol,” Babeu told reporters in a March 2016 press conference reported by Breitbart Texas.
This new set of orders from Secretary Kelly effectively removes those handcuffs and ends Obama’s catch and release programs.
“A country has a duty and obligation to secure its border. That didn’t change because Obama was the president,” Jackson County, Texas, Sheriff Andy Louderback told Breitbart Texas on Tuesday. “We are back to the rule of law now, and the gloves are off now, there’s no PEP. We are now allowed to do our job. I am on cloud 80 right now.” Louderback previously served as president of the Texas Sheriff’s Association.
Breitbart Texas was at a press conference when sheriffs from across the state descended upon the Texas Capitol in August 2015 to decry the federal policies of the Obama administration saying, criminal aliens have free rein.
“Policies that facilitate the release of removable aliens apprehended at and between the ports of entry, which allow them to abscond and fail to appear at their removal hearings, undermine the border security mission,” Kelly stated. “Such policies, collectively referred to as ‘catch-and-release,’ shall end.”
While part of Russian officialdom dodged comment on Michael Flynn’s resignation from the post of national security adviser or downplayed its importance, the consensus view was that this represented a negative signal for Russia. Russia would have to retrench its hopes for improved Russia-US relations under President Trump as the new president was finding it difficult to exercise control over an anti-Russian establishment. Some commentators believed that an anti-Russia cabal was behind Flynn’s ouster and that Flynn was merely the appetizer with Trump being the main course. These rogue officials backed by the media would not rest till they had ousted Trump and set back Russian-American relations.
We present a sampling of official and press reactions to the Flynn resignation.
Source: Gazeta.ru)
Senator Pushkov’s Tweetstorm
Senator Alexey Pushkov, a member of the Russian Federation Council’s Committee on International Affairs and an avid tweeter, took to Twitter to present his categorical assessment of the forces behind the resignation and their motivation:
“Flynn ‘was forced out’ not due to his missteps, but due to a vast aggressive campaign. “Russian –get out ” clamored the newspapers. This is paranoia and witch hunt.”
(Twitter.com/Alexey_Pushkov, February 14, 2017)
“Flynn leaves, but the Russian problem at Trump’s White House persists” – his enemies write. Flynn’s banishment was only the first act. Now – Trump is the target.”
(Twitter.com/Alexey_Pushkov, February 13, 2017)
“Flynn’s departure is probably the earliest resignation of a US National Security Advisor in history. Yet, Flynn was not the target, relations with Russia were.”
(Twitter.com/Alexey_Pushkov, February 13, 2017)
“It’s not going to end with Flynn’s resignation. Trump’s enemies with the help of the security special services and media will eradicate him ( Trump) until the impeachment. Trump himself is now the objective.”
(Twitter.com, February 14, 2017)
“Lots of money invested in the new cold war against Russia. Those who oppose the war are at high risk. Flynn’s massacre is clear evidence.”
(Twitter.com, February 14, 2017)
(Alexey Pushkov, Source: Pravda-tv.ru)
Senator Kosachev: ‘Russophobia Has Already Engulfed The New Administration From Top To Bottom’
Russian Senator Konstantin Kosachev, who chairs the Russian Federation Council’s Committee on International Affairs, wrote on his Facebook page: “Dismissing the national security adviser for contacts with Russia’s ambassador (ordinary diplomatic practice) is not just paranoia, but something much worse.” He then added: “Either Trump has not gained the desired independence and he is being consistently (and not unsuccessfully) pushed into a corner, or Russophobia has already engulfed the new administration from top to bottom.”
(Tass.com, February 14, 2017)
Konstantin Kosachev (Source: Rt.com)
Valery Garbuzov, Director of the Institute for US and Canada Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences, told Russian news agency TASS: “I believe the Russian issue is one of the most difficult for the U.S. administration in the sense that it has not yet developed recipes for tackling the Russian issue in general and in particular. These are the issues of sanctions, the issue of Ukraine, Crimea and so on.” He then said: “The U.S. president’s national security adviser is a significant figure who, along with the US secretary of state, takes part in shaping the country’s foreign policy. Flynn’s resignation indicates that internal contradictions, perhaps, internal struggles, begin to appear in the emerging US administration. Flynn’s resignation was a manifestation of this struggle. He was considered if not a pro-Russian member of Trump’s team, then a person who was committed to resuming pragmatic dialogue with Russia.”
(Tass.com, February 14, 2017)
The Deputy Chair of the Duma’s International Affairs committee, Alexey Chepa: “Flynn has just begun working, he did not have an opportunity build himself a reputation. Before the inauguration he’d had some consultations with our ambassador Kislyak. I don’t know to what extent he informed his superiors regarding the consultations. I don’t know either how it could lead to a possible blackmailing… In general, there was not enough time to arrange improved contacts, so I think this [resignation] won’t strongly affect [our relations with the US]”
(Ria.ru, February 14, 2017)
Presidential spokesperson Dmitri Peskov declined comment on Flynn’s resignation: “We do not want to comment on it in any manner. It’s America’s internal affair, the Trump administration’s internal affair. It’s not our business.”
(Ria.ru, February 14, 2017)
The Resignation Reduces Russia’s Confidence In The Trump Administration
According to Leonid Slutsky, chair of the Duma’s International Affairs Committee: “The situation regarding the resignation of national security advisor Michael Flynn, bears a provocative character. This is a form of negative signal concerning the building of a Russia-US dialog. It’s obvious that Flynn was forced to write the resignation announcement under pressure. Trump received this resignation. The excuse, which was chosen, is contacts with the Russian ambassador, though it’s common diplomatic practice. In these circumstances, the conclusion arises that the Russia-US relations were the set target. This erodes confidence in the US administration”.
(Ria.ru, February 14, 2017)
The TASS agency quotes Slutsky a bit differently: “Flynn’s resignation might be a provocation – it could well be that he will pop up again in US public administration. At the moment, it looks like a thrust and a sort of negative signal towards Russia, implying that we had discussed something improper with the US national security advisor, for which he paid for with his job … It’s an incredible assumption that Flynn, a very experienced person, divulged some state secrets”. According to Slutsky, “the whole buzz is aimed at Russia’s positioning as a strategic opponent amongst the American establishment”.
(Tass.ru, February 14, 2017)
Leonid Slutsky (Source: Polytika.ru)
According to Vladimir Batyuk, head of the Center for Military-Political Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences’ US and Canada Institute and professor of world politics at the Higher School of Economics :
“Flynn’s resignation is a powerful blow to the US administration. Flynn, as a national security advisor, was one of the key figures. Given that this man turned out to be undisciplined and incompetent, it’s a definite blow to the administration’s authority and to US-Russia relations. Moscow, from now on, will have far less confidence in the new administration and its ability to conduct confidential negotiations on delicate international matters and problems of bilateral relations. It will have negative consequences for the future Russo-American dialog.” Representatives of the Russian Federation will now fear approaching Trump administration officials. “When Ambassador Kislyak communicated with Flynn he was completely sure that he was talking to the Trump’s representative, rather than to private person, Mr. Flynn. Now, it’s not the case as it turns out and this is a blow to Moscow’s trust in the new administration. This trust usually carries high importance in diplomacy.”
(Ria.ru, February 14, 2017)
The Russian government daily Rossiiskaya Gazeta published an article by Igor Dunaevsky, where the author assumes that Flynn’s resignation was initiated by the secret services:
“It can’t be excluded that Flynn was “taken out” by the secret services. His Russian connections presented themselves as an excuse and were not the real reason. According to local media publications, Flynn, who headed MOD intelligence department in the Obama administration, was not popular in the American intelligence community and he reciprocated this attitude. Flynn’s resignation will not extensively affect White House’s approaches towards a dialog with Russia, but rather it will prove instrumental for those who want to impede that process.”
(This Pat Condell video from November of 2015 seems appropriate:
Please see also, Welcome to Sweden, Eldorado for Migrants! The linked copy here at Warsclerotic includes the Fox video to which President Trump referred and which has caused leftist consternation– DM)
Riots in Stockholm, Sweden – Feb 2017 (Rex Features via AP Images)
President Trump unleashed an international storm of ridicule Saturday when he said:
Here’s the bottom line, we have to keep our country safe. When you look at what’s happening in Germany, when you look at what’s happening last night in Sweden — Sweden. Who would believe this? Sweden. They took in large numbers, they’re having problems like they never thought possible.
But once again, those attacking Trump didn’t care to do their homework. The chorus was immediate and shrill. Wrote Vox:
The only problem is that nothing happened the prior night in Sweden.
Asked former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt:
Sweden? Terror attack? What has he been smoking?
But those who are cackling today about the idiot Trump and his imaginary terror in Sweden should pause to examine some recent headlines. Trump himself tweeted:
“My statement as to what’s happening in Sweden was in reference to a story that was broadcast on @FoxNews concerning immigrants & Sweden.”
“Give the public a break – The FAKE NEWS media is trying to say that large scale immigration in Sweden is working out just beautifully. NOT!”
On Friday night, according to Heat Street:
Fox News host Tucker Carlson interviewed documentarian Ami Horowitz about his upcoming film about violence involving migrants in Sweden. Horowitz claims that the Swedish government is downplayingan uptick in violence that followed a wave of refugee migration into the country.
…
Horowitz’s film shows a country that is deep in denial about a growing problem of migrant violence — including a sharp uptick in rape over the last five years. Horowitz claims that the increase correlates directly to Sweden’s refugee acceptance program; the country has taken in more than 190,000 Muslim immigrants in the same time frame.
The migrant violence is just part of the problem. The UK’s Express reported several weeks ago:
Sweden’s Prime Minister was brutalised in Parliament for allowing Sweden to crumble into a lawless state.
This was not hyperbole:
In February 2016, the National Criminal Investigation Service was forced to admit more than 50 areas in were now labelled as “no-go zones” as sex crimes, attacks on police, drug dealing and children carrying weapons were common occurrences.
Malmo, Sweden’s third-largest city, has been so hard hit by crime and car fires, the Social Democrats demanded soldiers should be sent in to reestablish law and order.
Malmo is Sweden’s most Muslim-dominated area. On New Year’s Eve, Muslim mobs there fired rockets at crowds and police. The Express reported in November 2016:
[M]igrant sex attacks against children in the Swedish city of Malmö could increase following a spate of incidents in broad daylight, police have warned. The city of Malmö has seen a huge rise in migrant crimein recent months.
Police spokesperson Ewa-Gun Westford explained:
Some cases concern rapes while in other cases it’s sexual molestation, and we think [this situation] could escalate. We do not want to create a rancorous atmosphere among the public but want to tread carefully. The information we have leads in a certain direction, but it is very sensitive and [these are] difficult issues for the vulnerable.
What?
The “sensitive,” “difficult” nature of fighting back against rape? Westford is referring only to the fact that Muslim migrants were perpetrating these crimes — and no one wanted to discuss the implications of that.
Even worse, Malmo is not the only place where this is happening. Last week in the Stockholm suburb of Rinkeby, which has a high Muslim immigrant population, a gang of thugs attacked and brutalized three police officers on patrol, hitting them, kicking them, and throwing bottles and glass at them. This has been going on for years. In August 2014 in Rinkeby, Muslims lured police in and then ambushed them, with about 200 Muslims stoning the cops and torching cars.
And in January, two Afghan Muslim migrants kidnapped a Swedish woman and streamed their repeated rapes of her live on Facebook.
Peter Springare, a police investigator in Örebro, blamed Muslim migrants for the chaos that was engulfing Sweden:
I’m so f***** tired. What I’m writing here isn’t politically correct. But I don’t care. Our pensioners are on their knees, the schools are a mess, healthcare is an inferno, the police is completely destroyed. Everyone knows why, but no one dares or wants to say why.
When he says “no one,” the chief culprit is the establishment media.
Hard-Left Canadian reporter Doug Saunders claimed that the idea that Sweden was suffering from a rape epidemic “falls apart as soon as you speak to anyone knowledgeable in Sweden.” Saunders admitted that “Sweden does indeed have far more reported cases of sexual assault than any other country.” Then, he asserted:
[I]t’s not because Swedes — of any colour — are very criminal. It’s because they’re very feminist. In 2005, Sweden’s Social Democratic government introduced a new sex-crime law with the world’s most expansive definition of rape.
Saunders quoted Jerzy Sarnecki, whom he identified as “a criminologist at Stockholm University,” as saying:
What we’re hearing is a very, very extreme exaggeration based on a few isolated events, and the claim that it’s related to immigration is more or less not true at all.
We have 50 no-go zones acknowledged by the National Criminal Investigation Service, and a crime wave so severe that Swedish MPs are excoriating the prime minister for “allowing Sweden to crumble into a lawless state.” Because of feminism?
America’s elites still praise FDR for partnering with one of the great mass murderers of human history, Stalin, to defeat Hitler. They still applaud Nixon for going to China to achieve a rapprochement with the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century, Mao Zedong.
Yet Trump is not to be allowed to achieve a partnership with Putin, whose great crime was a bloodless retrieval of a Crimea that had belonged to Russia since the 18th century.
The anti-Putin paranoia here is astonishing.
***************************
Among the reasons Donald Trump is president is that he read the nation and the world better than his rivals.
He saw the surging power of American nationalism at home, and of ethnonationalism in Europe. And he embraced Brexit.
While our bipartisan establishment worships diversity, Trump saw Middle America recoiling from the demographic change brought about by Third World invasions. And he promised to curb them.
While our corporatists burn incense at the shrine of the global economy, Trump went to visit the working-class casualties. And those forgotten Americans in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin, responded.
And while Bush II and President Obama plunged us into Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Trump saw that his countrymen wanted to be rid of the endless wars, and start putting America first.
He offered a new foreign policy. Mitt Romney notwithstanding, said Trump, Putin’s Russia is not “our number one geopolitical foe.”
Moreover, that 67-year-old NATO alliance that commits us to go to war to defend two dozen nations, not one of whom contributes the same share of GDP as do we to national defense, is “obsolete.”
Many of these folks are freeloaders, said Trump. He hopes to work with Russia against our real enemies, al-Qaida and ISIS.
This was the agenda Americans voted for. But what raises doubt about whether Trump can follow through on his commitments is the size and virulence of the anti-Trump forces in this city.
Consider his plan to pursue a rapprochement with Russia such as Ike, JFK at American University, Nixon and Reagan all pursued in a Cold War with a far more menacing Soviet Empire.
America’s elites still praise FDR for partnering with one of the great mass murderers of human history, Stalin, to defeat Hitler. They still applaud Nixon for going to China to achieve a rapprochement with the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century, Mao Zedong.
Yet Trump is not to be allowed to achieve a partnership with Putin, whose great crime was a bloodless retrieval of a Crimea that had belonged to Russia since the 18th century.
The anti-Putin paranoia here is astonishing.
That he is a killer, a KGB thug, a murderer, is part of the daily rant of John McCain. At the Munich Security Conference this last weekend, Sen. Lindsey Graham promised, “2017 is going to be a year of kicking Russia in the ass in Congress.” How’s that for statesmanship.
But how does a president negotiate a modus vivendi with a rival great power when the leaders of his own party are sabotaging him and his efforts?
As for the mainstream media, they appear bent upon the ruin of Trump, and the stick with which they mean to beat him to death is this narrative:
Trump is the Siberian Candidate, the creature of Putin and the Kremlin. His ties to the Russians are old and deep. It was to help Trump that Russia hacked the DNC and the computer of Clinton campaign chief John Podesta, and saw to it WikiLeaks got the emails out to the American people during the campaign. Trump’s people secretly collaborated with Russian agents.
Believing Putin robbed Hillary Clinton of the presidency, Democrats are bent on revenge — on Putin and Trump.
And the epidemic of Russophobia makes it almost impossible to pursue normal relations. Indeed, in reaction to the constant attacks on them as poodles of Putin, the White House seems to be toughening up toward Russia.
Thus we see U.S. troops headed for Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, NATO troops being sent into the Baltic States, and new tough rhetoric from the White House about Russia having to restore Crimea to Ukraine. We read of Russian spy ships off the coast, Russian planes buzzing U.S. warships in the Black Sea, Russians deploying missiles outlawed by the arms control agreement of 1987.
An Ohio-class U.S. sub just test-fired four Trident missiles, which carry thermonuclear warheads, off the Pacific coast.
Any hope of cutting a deal for a truce in east Ukraine, a lifting of sanctions, and bringing Russia back into Europe seems to be fading.
Where Russians saw hope with Trump’s election, they are now apparently yielding to disillusionment and despair.
The question arises: If not toward better relations with Russia, where are we going with this bellicosity?
Russia is not going to give up Crimea. Not only would Putin not do it, the Russian people would abandon him if he did.
What then is the end goal of this bristling Beltway hostility to Putin and Russia, and the U.S.-NATO buildup in the Baltic and Black Sea regions? Is a Cold War II with Russia now an accepted and acceptable reality?
Where are the voices among Trump’s advisers who will tell him to hold firm against the Russophobic tide and work out a deal with the Russian president?
For a second cold war with Russia, its back up against a wall, may not end quite so happily as the first.
After attending her first monthly meeting of the U.N. Security Council, new U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley slams forum’s anti-Israel bias and focus on condemning Israel rather than addressing the “real threats we face in the Middle East.”
Eli Leon and News Agencies
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley speaks to reporters following the U.N. Security Council’s monthly meeting on the Middle East last Thursday
A speech in support of Israel by new U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley went viral on social media on Monday.
Following the U.N. Security Council’s monthly discussion on the Middle East, in which Haley participated for the first time as the U.S. representative, she convened a press conference Thursday at which she said she had been surprised to discover that the discussion had not covered Hezbollah’s illegal missile armament, Iran’s funding and arming terrorist organizations, ways to defeat the Islamic State group, or how Syrian President Bashar Assad could be held accountable for the slaughters of hundreds of thousands of Syrian civilians.
“No, instead the meeting focused on criticizing Israel, the one true democracy in the Middle East,” Haley said.
“I might be new here, but I understand that this is how the Security Council has behaved month after month for decades. I am here to underscore the ironclad support of the United States for Israel. I’m here to emphasize the United States is determined to stand up to the UN’s anti-Israel bias. We will never repeat the terrible mistake of Resolution 2334 and allow one-sided Security Council resolutions to condemn Israel. Instead, we will push for action on the real threats we face in the Middle East.
“We stand for peace. We support a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that is negotiated directly between the two parties.”
Clarion sources have noted that the military officially lists all mysterious deaths of Christians in the military as “suicides.” This shows the vast Islamist infiltration throughout Egypt despite President Sisi’s promise to do more for the Christians.
President Sisi fights many fronts and has a more difficult uphill battle than nearly any world leader in modern history.
No leader has ever spoken up for Christians the way President Sisi has. Sisi has actually done a great deal for Christians, and the Christian community recognizes that and appreciates it.
***************************
Christians have lost another fellow believer in Egypt. Ishak Ibrahim Fayez Younan, 37, had his throat slit in his Cairo home and was discovered by his brother, marking the fifth murder in only two weeks. Younan is one of many Christians who have had throats slit and been murdered for their faith.
Despite being in his home, nothing was taken indicating there was no motivation to rob Younan. We can assume his death, which follows a similar pattern of other recent murders in Egypt, was the result of his identification as a Christian in Egypt.
Younan had been working at a local factory that distributes soft drinks to grocery stores to support his wife and two children, ages 10 and 12, who now have no father.
Many citizens of Egypt are calling on President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to do more for Christians in Egypt, but the underlying and deep-seated Islamist ideology and resentment against Christians seems to go beyond his capabilities as head of state.
Coptic Christians make up 10% Egypt’s population and suffer grave persecution, ranging from denial of jobs, burning of their churches and targets for assassination as in the case of Younan. In December 2016, a large number of churches were bombed and, according to CNN, more than two dozen people were killed with several more injured.
Likewise, many Christian soldiers in the Egyptian Army are facing the same fate because of their faith. Several Coptic soldiers have been the victims of mysterious deaths. In June of 2015, Bahaa Gamal Mikhail Silvanus, 23, was found dead in his office at the post where he was stationed. Silvanus suffered two gunshot wounds and critical blunt force trauma to his head.
Yet, military officials ruled that the cause of death was suicide. Only a few short months later, Baha Saeed Karam, 22, was found dead from four fatal gunshot wounds at his headquarters. Sources from both Silvanus and Karam’s friends and family say that they had been hassled several times by fellow soldiers to convert to Islam. Karam had received death threats from Islamic soldiers shortly prior to his death.
Clarion sources have noted that the military officially lists all mysterious deaths of Christians in the military as “suicides.” This shows the vast Islamist infiltration throughout Egypt despite President Sisi’s promise to do more for the Christians.
President Sisi fights many fronts and has a more difficult uphill battle than nearly any world leader in modern history. Here are some of the hurdles he faces in a country where Christian persecution has historically been among the worst:
1. Since the Muslim Brotherhood was criminalized, the Salafists in Egypt aligned themselves with Sisi to keep safe. Yet, their ideological beliefs that allow for violence against Christians remain rampant.
2. Any sudden movement by Sisi to denounce all Islamist oppressive ideology could result in riots and a loss of his popular support, especially considering the presence in Egypt of Al Azhar University, the seat of the world’s leading Islamic thinkers and teachers.Such broad denouncing could also prove more deadly for Egypt’s Christians who may be viewed as the ones to blame for Sisi’s crackdown on Islamists. No leader has ever spoken up for Christians the way President Sisi has.Sisi has actually done a great deal for Christians, and the Christian community recognizes that and appreciates it.
He has denounced all attacks on Christian churches and has continued to rebuild the destroyed churches in upper Egypt that Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers destroyed in 2013.
3. Brotherhood sympathizers will always hate Sisi, denounce his rule and try to prohibit him from receiving international support. We must never forget that Cairo is the birthplace of Islamist ideology and their genius suppression tactics. These tactics are in full force against the pro-Christian and pro-Israel President Sisi.
Hezbollah head Hassan Nasrallah speaking to Iranian state television, in a clip broadcast on February 20, 2017. (screen capture: Twitter)
Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah on Monday doubled down on his recent saber-rattling against Israel and warned that his terror group would not hold back from attacking sensitive Israeli targets if the Jewish state goes to war with Lebanon.
During a television interview with the Iran’s state-run Islamic Republic News Agency, the terror chief repeated a previous threat of firing rockets at Israel’s nuclear reactor in Dimona and at a huge ammonia storage tank in Haifa.
Hezbollah will not keep to any “red lines” in a future war with Israel, Nasrallah cautioned.
“In the face of Israel’s threats to destroy Lebanon’s infrastructure, we will not abide by red lines, especially regarding Haifa’s ammonia and the nuclear reactor in Dimona. Hezbollah possesses the full courage for this,” he said, according to an English translation of his comments reported by the Naharnet website.
He also warned Israel to “count to a million” before going to war in Lebanon.
“We are not advocates of war. We are in the defense position,” Nasrallah said.
This photo taken on September 8, 2002, shows a partial view of the Dimona nuclear power plant in the southern Israeli Negev desert. (AFP/Thomas Coex)
Israel and Hezbollah fought a punishing war in 2006, but have maintained a tense calm watched over by UN peacekeepers on the border since then, punctuated by several deadly cross-border incidents.
Israeli officials have raised alarms in recent years that Hezbollah may be bolstering its positions in southern Lebanon and in the Syrian Golan Heights, and a court recently ordered an ammonia tank in the city of Haifa to be shut amid fears a missile strike on the facility could sow mass casualties.
Lebanese President Michel Aoun, who draws support from Hezbollah, recently called for the terror group to remain armed to “resist Israel,” despite a UN resolution forbidding militias in Lebanon.
In other statements reported by IRNA affiliated Press TV Monday night, Nasrallah offered reassurance to the Palestinians that they have not been forgotten. On Tuesday, a two-day international conference on the Palestinians was set to kick off in Iran with the participation of some 80 delegations.
“The most important result and message of this action for the Palestinian nation is that you have not been left alone and that an important and powerful country in the region supports you,” Nasrallah said.
The Hezbollah leader commented on US President Donald Trump’s statements last week during a press conference in Washington with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in which he said that Washington would no longer pursue only a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and would look at any plan the sides agreed on.
Nasrallah said that Trump’s apparent bucking of decades of previous US policy supporting the two-state scheme was a positive development in that it showed Israel’s true intentions regarding the Palestinians.
Nasrallah, who had previously threatened to target an ammonia tank in Haifa, claimed credit for an Israeli court decision to shut down that facility last week and said he would do the same with the nuclear reactor.
An assessment commissioned by the Haifa facility found that a strike on the tank, which holds some 12,000 tons of ammonia, could cause tens of thousands of injuries or deaths in the area.
Haifa’s industrial zone. The ammonia tank is visible on the jetty jutting into the sea at the right. (Shay Levy/Flash90)
In response to Nasrallah’s statement, Minister of Intelligence Yisrael Katz threatened in a statement to target “all of Lebanon,” including infrastructures there, in retaliation for any attack on Israeli population centers or infrastructures. He also called for “debilitating sanctions” on Iran over its support for its “proxy and stooge” Nasrallah.
On Sunday an Arab media reported that Nasrallah’s threats last week came after Israel passed a message to Hezbollah warning it of a forceful response to any attack from Lebanon or Syria, where Hezbollah has been helping prop up Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime by fighting against rebel groups seeking to oust him.
The message was passed along to the Lebanon terror group via an unnamed Arab emissary, according to a report in the Arabic-language London-based Al-Hayat newspaper. It was not clear exactly when Israel sent the message or what prompted it.
International agencies believe Israel has over 100 nuclear weapons. Israel has neither confirmed or denied the existence of its nuclear arsenal, maintaining a policy of “nuclear ambiguity.”
(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)
Evidence of political corruption should be.
It has been obvious since the early Republican primaries that most media coverage of a Trump presidency would be adverse and presented out of context. Perhaps a recent editorial at The Week Magazine explains why, albeit inadvertently. Or maybe this cartoon better explains the media view:
Trump and Putin as seen by the lamebrain media
According to The Week Magazine, all leaks are equal. However, we approve of those which fit our politics and disapprove of those which don’t.
Live by the leak, die by the leak. When WikiLeaks was releasing a steady stream of embarrassing emails hacked from Democratic officials during the presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton and her supporters cried foul, and urged the press not to report their contents. Donald Trump applauded every new revelation, saying the leaks provided voters with important information, and gleefully invited the Russians to find and publish emails she had deleted. “Boy, that WikiLeaks has done a job on her, hasn’t it?” Trump exulted. Now that it’s Trump who is being tortured by leaks, he’s complaining they’re illegal and “un-American.” Democrats, meanwhile, are welcoming the torrent like a rainstorm after a long drought. (See Main Stories.) When it comes to leaks, everyone is a hypocrite. “Good” leaks are ones that damage our opponents. “Bad” leaks are those that hurt Our Side. [Emphasis added.]
But let’s set partisanship aside for a moment. Is it always in the public interest for government officials to leak, and for the media to publish leaked material? Crusading journalist Glenn Greenwald—who angered the Obama administration by publishing Edward Snowden’s trove of stolen NSA documents—argues in TheIntercept.com this week that all leaks exposing “wrong-doing” are good ones, regardless of the leaker’s motives. “Leaks are illegal and hated by those in power (and their followers),” Greenwald says, “precisely because political officials want to be able to lie to the public with impunity and without detection.” The implication of this argument, of course, is that governments, politicians, and organizations should not keep any secrets—that when people in power conceal documents, emails, or information that could embarrass them, they are by definition deceiving the public. Radical transparency certainly sounds noble—but I suspect it’s a standard no public official, or indeed most of us, could survive. It’s so much more convenient to have a double standard: Transparency for thee, but not for me.
I disagree. Leaks of unclassified materials demonstrating corruption of the political process by either party are necessary for an effectively functioning democracy. Leaks of highly classified national security information — particularly in the area of foreign policy — endanger our democracy, are crimes and the perpetrators should be dealt with accordingly. When the media sensationalize leaks of the latter type, they are complicit and must be criticized vigorously.
The press has long served as an objective fail-safe to protect the public from the powers-that-be. That objectivity is now absent and the media’s role in our democratic society is in jeopardy. Rather than self-reflect as to how they got off course, the press have opted to label the man who exposed this derailment as un-American.
What’s un-American is the belief that the press should be unaccountable for its actions. What’s un-American is the belief that any attempt to criticize the press should be viewed as heresy. What’s un-American is the belief that the press is akin to a golden calf that compels Americans, presidents included, to worship the press.
Two very different types of leaks
a. DNC and Podesta e-mails:
The DNC and Podesta e-mails were released as written and posted by DNC officials and Podesta for transmission on unsecured servers easily hacked by modestly competent teenage hackers. I have seen no suggestion that the e-mails were classified. The intelligence community opined that Russian agents had done the hacking, but offered no significant proof beyond that the methods used by the hacker(s) were comparable to those used by Russian hackers in the past.
They found no discrepancies between the original e-mails and those posted by WikiLeaks (which denied that Russia had been the source). The e-mail leaks damaged the Clinton campaign because they portrayed, accurately — and in their own words — dishonest efforts of high-level DNC and Clinton campaign personnel to skew the Democrat primary process in Ms. Clinton’s favor. They did not involve American foreign policy until Obama — who had previously done nothing of significance to halt Russia’s hacking of highly classified information from our intelligence establishment beyond asking, “pretty please, stop” — decided that Russia must be punished for Hillary’s loss of the general election through sanctions and by the expulsion of thirty-five of its diplomats.
Russian president Vladimir Putin had been expected to respond in kind, with the expulsion of US diplomats from its territory.
Neither transcripts nor audio recordings of the Flynn telephone conversations were released. Instead, conclusions of the leakers were released. According to House Intelligence Chair Devin Nunes,
“I think there is a lot of innuendo out there that the intelligence agencies have a problem with Donald Trump. The rank and file people that are out doing jobs across the world — very difficult places — they don’t pay attention to what is going on in Washington,” the California representative told CBS “Face the Nation” host John Dickerson.
“What we have is we do have people in the last administration, people who are burrowed in, perhaps all throughout the government, who clearly are leaking to the press,” Nunes added. “And it is against the law. Major laws have been broken. If you believe the Washington Post story that said there were nine people who said this, these are nine people who broke the law.” [Emphasis added.]
Nunes said the FBI and other intelligence agencies ought to investigate who has leaked information to the press because so few people in the administration knew these secrets, that it would have had to have been someone at the “highest levels of the Obama administration” who is an acting official until Trump replaces him or her.
Did the leaker(s) try to present the conversations honestly, or to damage President Trump’s efforts to deal with Russia in matters of foreign policy where American and Russian interests coincide? To disrupt America’s badly needed “reset” with Russia which seemed likely to succeed under President Trump after Clinton’s and Obama’s efforts had failed?
Remember the Obama – Romney debate when Romney characterized Russia as America’s greatest geopolitical threat and Obama responded that the cold war was over and that “the 1980’s are calling and want their foreign policy back”?
The position now asserted by the Democrats and the media seems rather like the position that Obama rejected. If the position(s) of the Democrats and the media are now correct and Russia is again our enemy, might it be due to actions which Obama took or failed to take over the past eight years?
On January 22, 2017, the Russian media outlet Pravda.ru published an analysis on Russia-Iran relations. According to the article’s author, Dmitri Nersesov, Iran is becoming a problem for Russian interests. Nersesov also added that Iran wants Russia to choose between Iran and Washington. “Iran wants Russia to recognize that Teheran holds the key to the regulation of the Syrian crisis. Should Russia decide that the real strategy is built on the cooperation between Moscow and Washington, rather than Moscow and Teheran; the Islamic Republic will be extremely disappointed,” Nersesov wrote. [Emphasis added.]
An American – Russian realignment in areas of mutual concern — which as suggested below had seemed to be progressing well until General Flynn ceased to be involved — would be good, not bad. We have many areas of mutual concern, and Iran is one of them. The war in Syria is another. When were Russians last directed to yell Death to America? Or to refer to America as the “Great Satan?”
c. General Flynn, Russia and Iran
General Flynn had, at President Trump’s request, been dealing with Russia concerning the future roles of Iran, Russia and America in the Syria debacle:
Overlaying US President Donald Trump’s extraordinary, hour-long skirmish with reporters Thursday, Feb. 16, was bitter frustration over the domestic obstacles locking him out from his top security and foreign policy goals. [Emphasis added.]
Even before his inauguration four weeks ago, he had arranged to reach those goals by means of an understanding with President Vladimir Putin for military and intelligence cooperation in Syria, both for the war on the Islamic State and for the removal of Iran and its Lebanese surrogate Hizballah from that country. [Emphasis added.]
But his antagonists, including elements of the US intelligence community, were turning his strategy into a blunderbuss for hitting him on the head, with the help of hostile media.
Thursday, in a highly unconventional meeting with the world media, he tried to hit back, and possibly save his strategy.
That won’t be easy. The exit of National Security Adviser Mike Flynn, the prime mover in the US-Russian détente, sent the Kremlin a negative signal. The Russians began unsheathing their claws when they began to suspect that the US president was being forced back from their understanding. The SSV 175 Viktor Leonov spy ship was ordered to move into position opposite Delaware on the East Coast of America; Su-24 warplanes buzzed the USS Porter destroyer in the Black Sea.
Before these events, Washington and Moscow wre moving briskly towards an understanding. debkafile’s intelligence sources disclose that the Kremlin had sent positive messages to the White House on their joint strategy in Syria, clarifying that Moscow was not locked in on Bashar Assad staying on as president. [Emphasis added.]
They also promised to table at the Geneva conference on Syria taking place later this month a demand for the all “foreign forces” to leave Syria. This would apply first and foremost to the pro-Iranian Iraqi, Pakistani and Afghan militias brought in by Tehran to fight for Assad under the command of Revolutionary Guards officers, as well as Hizballah. [Emphasis added.]
Deeply troubled by this prospect, Tehran sent Iran’s supreme commander in the Middle East, the Al Qods chief Gen. Qassem Soleimani, to Moscow this week to find out what was going on.
Flynn’s departure put the lid on this progress. Then came the damaging leak to the Wall Street Journal, that quoted an “intelligence official” as saying that his agencies hesitated to reveal to the president the “sources and methods” they use to collect information, due to “possible links between Trump associates and Russia.. Those links, he said “could potentially compromise the security of such classified information.”
A first-year student knows that this claim is nonsense, since no agency ever share its sources and methods with any outsider, however high-placed.
What the leak did reveal was that some Washington insiders were determined at all costs to torpedo the evolving understanding between the American and Russian presidents. The first scapegoat was the strategy the two were developing for working together in Syria. [Emphasis added.]
Defending his policy of warming relations with Moscow, Trump protested that “getting along with Russia is not a bad thing.” He even warned there would be a “nuclear holocaust like no other” if relations between the two superpowers were allowed to deteriorate further.
It is too soon to say whether his Russian policy is finally in shreds or can still be repaired. Trump indicated more than once in his press briefing that he would try and get the relations back on track.
Asked how he would react to Russia’s latest provocative moves, he said: “I’m not going to tell you anything about what responses I do. I don’t talk about military responses. I don’t have to tell you what I’m going to do in North Korea,” he stressed.
At all events, his administration seems to be at a crossroads between whether to try and salvage the partnership with Russia for Syria, or treat it as a write-off. If the latter, then Trump must decide whether to send American troops to the war-torn country to achieve his goals, or revert to Barack Obama’s policy of military non-intervention in the conflict. [Emphasis added.]
Substantially more is generally involved in matters of foreign policy than is facially apparent or than government officials should discuss publicly, particularly while negotiations with foreign powers are underway. Leaks by held-over members of the intelligence community did much to reveal the opinions of the leakers but little to reveal what General Flynn had been doing, while upsetting the chances of better American – Russian relations in areas of mutual concern.
Conclusions — The Administrative State
The Federal Government has grown far too big for its britches, giving the unelected “administrative state” substantially more authority, and hence power, than is consistent with a properly functioning democracy. As they have been demonstrating in recent months, holdovers from one administration can succeed, at least partially, in paralyzing a new and democratically elected president. Holdovers with political appointee status can generally be fired. Few others who should be can be.
Getting rid of the obstructionist “civil servants” who have become our masters should rank very high on President Trump’s “to do” list and should be accomplished before it’s too late. The task may be difficult but is not impossible. Perhaps some particularly obnoxious Federal agencies (or departments within those agencies) can be relocated to places less congenial than Washington. Inner City Chicago comes to mind. So do otherwise pleasant cities in California, where housing prices are much higher than in the Washington, D.C. area. How many Federal employees faced with the choice of relocating or resigning would choose the latter option?
There are likely other and probably better ways to get rid of the fatheads. President Trump’s administration should devise them.
The liberal media’s war on the Trump administration has become comical in its monomania. The latest skirmish is over this riff from Trump’s triumphant speech in Melbourne, Florida:
Here’s the bottom line. We’ve got to keep our country safe. You look at what’s happening. We’ve got to keep our country safe. You look at what’s happening in Germany, you look at what’s happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this. Sweden. They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible. You look at what’s happening in Brussels. You look at what’s happening all over the world.
Trump said that in Sweden, “They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible.” He obviously was referring to the large numbers of refugees that Sweden has tried to absorb over the last several years. The passing reference to “what’s happening last night” wasn’t clear, but Trump has explained that he referred to a television news story about the problems Sweden has experienced with its large refugee population:
On Sunday, Trump took to Twitter to explain: “My statement as to what’s happening in Sweden was in reference to a story that was broadcast on @FoxNews concerning immigrants & Sweden.” …
The president may be referring to a segment aired Friday night on the Fox News Channel show “Tucker Carlson Tonight” that reported Sweden had accepted more than 160,000 asylum-seekers last year but that only 500 of the migrants had found jobs in Sweden. The report, which was illustrated with video of broken windows and fires, went on to say that a surge in gun violence and rape had followed the influx of immigrants.
Yes. Or, in other words, “having problems like they never thought possible.” Liberals pretended not to understand Trump’s point, and made believe that Trump was talking about a phantom terrorist attack on Friday night. The Swedish government even joined in the faux mirth. The linked AP story is deeply dishonest. It joins in the absurd misinterpretation of Trump’s remarks, and never even mentions what he actually said about Sweden: “Sweden, who would believe this. Sweden. They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible.” But dishonesty has become a daily occurrence at the Associated Press.
As happens so often, liberals think they are scoring points against Trump when in fact they are making fools of themselves. As Trump said, Sweden has imported too many refugees, and the results aren’t pretty. Most are living off the government, and some are committing crimes, especially sex crimes. Here are the official Swedish sex crimes numbers from 2006 through 2015, reflecting a 49% increase:
I suppose liberals think that is pure coincidence. As often happens, Trump has made a valid point that is of great concern to voters. His opponents, meanwhile, refuse to acknowledge his point, and instead pretend to misunderstand him. Then they chuckle to each other over how clever they are. Pathetic.
A group of Canadian protesters with placards stating “Say No to Islam” outside of Masjid Toronto could face hate crime charges. Toronto Mayor John Tory “criticized the protest, calling it ‘Islamophobia’ in a Tweet.” Yet authorities appear to have little to no concern about the actions of that mosque, which clearly played a role in eliciting the protests. This is where the imam prayed: “O Allah! Give us victory over the disbelieving people…slay them one by one and spare not one of them.”
The downtown Masjid Toronto is affiliated with the Muslim Association of Canada — a self-described offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. As reported by CIJ News:
In 2016, imams…at the mosque recited supplications to Allah in support of the “mujahideen (those of engage in jihad) everywhere”, the total destruction of the enemies of Islam and the purification of Al-Aqsa Mosque from the “filth of the Jews.”
Islamic schools and mosques across Canada are “filled with extremist literature,” according to an exhaustive study, and the jihad doctrine is being preached there. So while Canadian authorities should be investigating this mosque, they are instead targeting those who are protesting.
Meanwhile, a Toronto-area schoolteacher who called a jihadist who crushed the skull of a four-year-old Israeli girl a hero and martyr is back in the classroom, after receiving a mere rap on the knuckles for her abhorrently violent Facebook postings. A spokesperson for the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School said that Nadia Shoufani returned to work at St. Catherine of Siena Separate School before Christmas. She was not charged with a hate crime, according to the announcement, and she is being entrusted with the well-being of children. Why should any Canadian child have to sit in a classroom led by a murder-minded, hate-filled teacher? The school administration should be prioritizing the well-being of the children.
Canada has been battered by an Islamic supremacist infiltration, which includes an attack on free speech disguised as an anti-racism initiative. Since October, two “anti-Islamophobia” motions were presented in Parliament. The first unanimously passed without contest, because few Canadians knew anything about it. The second, however – Motion M-103 – was met with unexpected resistance from Conservative MP’s and a substantial number of concerned Canadian citizens. This resistance led to an indefinite adjournment of the Parliamentary motion.
The two “anti-Islamophobia” motions were a culmination of prior efforts to bring the “Islamophobia” agenda into Canada. This is an outright Sharia scheme aimed at the curbing of free speech, as part of the larger initiative propelled by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Last summer, community leaders from six major “Canadian cities (Vancouver, Calgary, London, Windsor, Toronto, and Montreal) endorsed an Islamophobia charter.” As previously reported here at Jihad Watch:
The National Council of Canadian Muslims, formerly CAIR-CAN, drafted the charter. CAIR was deemed an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing trial in the history of the United States — the Holy Land Foundation trial — during which the carefully calculated Muslim Brotherhood plan for North America was unveiled, with full partnership from so-called mainstream Muslim groups.
Islamic supremacists have been working overtime in Western nations to execute this plan. A similar strategic plan was uncovered by Swiss authorities in a document called “the Project” in 2001. Anti-terrorism consultant Patrick Poole writes:
What makes The Project so different from the standard “Death of America! Death to Israel!” and “Establish the global caliphate!” Islamist rhetoric is that it represents a flexible, multi-phased, long-term approach to the “cultural invasion” of the West. Calling for the utilization of various tactics, ranging from immigration, infiltration, surveillance, propaganda, protest, deception, political legitimacy and terrorism
Naïve Westerners continue to be used as pawns in clearly sketched-out plans to defeat the House of War (non-Muslim countries) and incorporate them into with the House of Islam. The method of conquest is an aggressive, but strategic and insidious assault using existing institutions; yet still, political correctness persists; many people are hesitant to speak about what is happening for fear of coming across as a conspiracy theorist, despite the clear documentation of this initiative.
In the case of the Masjid Toronto, authorities need to be investigating the activities inside that mosque. Canadians and other peace-loving citizens are not protesting outside Hindu, Buddhist and Jewish temples. They are concerned about a tangible danger posed by an organized network of Islamic supremacists (aka stealth jihadists).
“Canadian Anti-Muslim Protesters Could Face Hate Crime Charges”, David Krayden, Daily Caller, February 19, 2017:
Police in Toronto, Ontario might charge a group of anti-Muslim protesters for violating hate crime laws.
A group with placards stating “Say No to Islam” was standing outside of Toronto’s Masjid mosque [sic] on Friday, and police say they received multiple complaints about the demonstration from some in the mosque and others who weren’t present.
Toronto Mayor John Tory, a former leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, criticized the protest, calling it “Islamophobia” in a Tweet:
Constable Allyson Douglas-Cook told CBC News Saturday that the incident is being examined by police as a potential hate crime. The police constable claimed that there is a “fine line” between free speech and breaching hate crime laws but refused to specify what constitutes that distinction, adding, “That’s a conversation we’ve been having all day.”
The investigators plan to speak to witnesses, take statements and collect evidence if necessary. Mosque spokesman Abdul-Basit Khan claimed the protest was the worst he has seen since the mosque was built 15 years ago.
“You’re used to seeing this kind of vitriol in the comments sections of newspapers or online. You don’t necessarily see it in person. So that’s what was surprising about yesterday,” he said. “Especially in light of Quebec City…”
The event came just days after a Toronto-area Liberal Member of Parliament (MP) officially tabled a motion in the Canadian House of Commons that could potentially make “Islamophobia” another hate crime. Debate on Iqra Khalid’s motion began last Wednesday, with only the opposition Conservatives refusing to endorse the potential legislation because they say the definition of “Islamophobia” is too flexible and not even spelled-out in the motion.
Critics are wondering why an Islamophobia motion is necessary if people could be charged with a hate crime for a simple protest under existing law.
Conservative Party leadership candidate and Quebec MP Maxime Bernier told The Daily Caller that the motion represents a gross violation of free speech and said that he will fight it.
“I was one of the first in the Canadian leadership to oppose that motion. It is not good for freedom of speech and freedom of opinion in this country — the most important right that we have…..
File Photo
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments